SUMMARY: These final standards amend the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration's (OSHA's) standards issued June 17, 1986 (51 FR 22612,
29 CFR 1910.1001, June 20, 1986) for occupational exposure to asbestos in
general industry, and the construction industry, 29 CFR 1926.1101 (previously
1926.58). In addition, they include a separate standard covering occupational
exposure to asbestos in the shipyard industry, (29 CFR 1915.1001). Major
revisions in these standards include a reduced time-weighted-average
permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter (f/cc) for
all asbestos work in all industries, a new classification scheme for asbestos
construction and shipyard industry work which ties mandatory work practices
to work classification, a presumptive asbestos identification requirement for
"high hazard" asbestos containing building materials, limited notification
requirements for employers who use unlisted compliance methods in high risk
asbestos abatement work, and mandatory methods of control for brake and
clutch repair.

Most of the revisions in these amended standards are the final response to
an order of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
Building and Construction Trades Department v. Brock, 838 F. 2d 1258, (D.C.
Cir 1988), which had upheld the 1986 standards in major respects, but which
had remanded certain issues for reconsideration. OSHA had made earlier
changes in response to the court order on December 14, 1989 (54 FR 52024,
December 20, 1989), and on February 5, 1990 (55 FR 3724).

OSHA believes that these final standards fully address all of the concerns
of the participants in this rulemaking and are responsive to all issues
remanded by the court for reconsideration.

DATES: The effective date of these amendments is October 11, 1994.
Various start-up dates are specified in the standards.

OSHA has regulated asbestos several times as more information has become
available. Asbestos rulemakings marked the early years of the Agency. A 12
f/cc permissible exposure limit (PEL) for asbestos was included in the
initial promulgation on May 29, 1971 (36 FR 10466) of OSHA standards pursuant
to Section 6(a) of the Act. In response to a petition by the Industrial Union
Department of the AFL-CIO, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS)
on asbestos on December 7, 1971, which established a PEL of 5 f/cc as an
8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) and a peak exposure level of 10 f/cc.

In June 1972, OSHA promulgated a new final standard that established an
8-hour TWA PEL of 5 f/cc and a ceiling limit of 10 f/cc. These limits were
intended primarily to protect employees against asbestosis, and it was hoped
that they would provide some incidental degree of protection against asbestos
induced forms of cancer. Effective July 1976, OSHA's 8-hour TWA limit was
reduced to 2 f/cc and this limit remained in effect up to the effective date
of the revised 1986 standards.

In October 1975, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (40 FR
47652) to revise the asbestos standard because the Agency believed that
"sufficient medical and scientific evidence has been accumulated to warrant
the designation of asbestos as a human carcinogen" and that advances in
monitoring and protective technology made re-examination of the standard
"desirable." This proposal would have reduced the 8-hour TWA to 0.5 f/cc and
imposed a ceiling limit of 5 f/cc for 15 minutes. The 1975 proposal would
have applied to all industries except construction.

At that time no separate proposal applicable to the construction industry
was developed by the Agency.

On May 24, 1983 OSHA consulted with the Advisory Committee for Construction
Safety and Health ("ACCSH") concerning the applicability of any new asbestos
standard to the construction industry. ACCSH endorsed OSHA's position that
any new PEL adopted for general industry should also apply to the
construction industry (Ex. 84-424).

On November 4, 1983 OSHA published an ETS for asbestos (48 FR 51096). The
ETS marked a new regulatory initiative, related to, but not part of the 1975
proceeding. The ETS was held invalid by the U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit on March 7, 1984.

Subsequently, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (49 FR 1416,
April 10, 1984) for a standard covering occupational exposure to asbestos in
all work places subject to the Act. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act, the
ETS also served as a proposed rule. On June 17, 1986, OSHA issued two revised
standards, one governing occupational exposure to asbestos in general
industry workplaces, the other applicable to construction workplaces (51 FR
22612 et seq., June 20, 1986). Effective July 21, 1986, the revised standards
amended OSHA's previous asbestos standard issued in 1972. The 1986 standards
explicitly applied to occupational exposure to non-asbestiform tremolite,
anthophyllite and actinolite. After a subsequent and separate rulemaking
proceeding OSHA has deleted these minerals from the scope of the asbestos
standards. (57 FR 24310, June 8, 1992).

The separate comprehensive asbestos standards for general industry and
construction which were issued in 1986 shared the same permissible exposure
limit (PEL) and most ancillary requirements. Both standards reduced the
8-hour time weighted average (TWA) PEL tenfold to 0.2 f/cc from the previous
2 f/cc limit. Specific provisions were added in the construction standard to
cover unique hazards relating to asbestos abatement and demolition jobs.

Several major participants in the rulemaking proceeding including the
AFL-CIO, the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of the
AFL-CIO, and the Asbestos Information Association (AIA), challenged various
provisions of the revised standards. On February 2, 1988, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia issued its decision upholding most major
challenged provisions, but remanding certain issues to OSHA for
reconsideration (BCTD, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258). The Court determined
that OSHA had not adequately explained why it was not adopting certain
recommended provisions in light of evidence suggesting that those provisions
would be feasible to implement and would provide more than a de minimis
benefit for worker health. The Court also ordered OSHA to clarify the
regulatory text for two provisions and found one provision, a ban of spraying
asbestos-containing products, unsupported by the record. In addition, OSHA's
failure to adopt a short-term exposure limit (STEL) was ordered to be
reconsidered within 60 days of the Court's mandate. In partial response, OSHA
issued a STEL of 1 f/cc measured over a 30-minute sampling period, on
September 14, 1988 (53 FR 35610).

In response to additional petitions by BCTD and the AFL-CIO, the Court, in
an October 30, 1989 order, divided the remand issues into three categories as
follows. With respect to three issues, the Court ordered OSHA to take action
by December 14, 1989. These issues were:

Issue 1. formally delete the ban on the spraying of asbestos-containing
materials;

Issue 2. clarify that periodic monitoring in the construction industry must
be resumed after conditions change; and

Issue 3. Clarify the exemption for "small-scale, short duration operations"
from the negative-pressure enclosure requirements of the construction
standard to limit the exemption to work operations where it is impractical to
construct an enclosure because of the configuration of the work environment.

OSHA issued its response on these issues on December 14, 1989 (54 FR 52024,
December 20, 1989). In that document OSHA (1) removed the ban on the spraying
of asbestos-containing materials; (2) changed the regulatory text to clarify
that construction employers must resume periodic monitoring whenever there
has been a change in process, control equipment, personnel or work practices
that may result in new or additional asbestos exposure; and (3) explained why
OSHA was not amending the regulatory text to clarify the limited exemption
for "small-scale, short-duration operations" in the construction industry
standard, but instead would institute rulemaking on this issue.

With respect to the second group of issues, the Court ordered OSHA to
complete its response on the existing record by January 28, 1990. These
issues are:

Issue 5. The effectiveness levels of various respirators and OSHA's policy
of requiring respirators to protect workers at only PEL level; and

Issue 6. The possibility of bi-lingual warnings and labels for employers
with a significant number of non-English-speaking employees.

The Court stated that if OSHA determines that these issues could not be
resolved on the existing record, OSHA may explain why and commence new
rulemaking instead.

On January 28, 1990, OSHA issued its response on these issues (55 FR 3724,
February 5, 1990). In that document, OSHA: (1) prohibited workplace smoking
in areas where occupational exposure to asbestos takes place; expanded
training requirements to include information about available smoking
cessation programs; required the distribution of self-help smoking cessation
material; and, required a written opinion by the physician stating that the
employee has been advised of the combined dangers of smoking and working with
asbestos; (2) explained how and why the 1986 respiratory protection standards
will reduce employee risk below that remaining solely as a result of the PEL,
and that the effectiveness levels of respirators are under review; and (3)
required employers to ensure that employees working in or near regulated
areas understand warning signs, and required training programs to
specifically instruct employees as to the content and presence of signs and
labels.

Finally, as to the third group of three remaining remand issues, the Court
ordered OSHA to resolve these issues after rulemaking. These issues are:

Issue 8. The extension of reporting and information transfer requirements;
and

Issue 9. The expansion of the competent person requirement to all employers
engaged in any kind of construction work.

In addition, the Court granted OSHA's unopposed request to publish the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this group of issues on April 13, 1990, to
allow sufficient time to consult with the Advisory Committee on Construction
Safety and Health (ACCSH). Under the Construction Safety Act (40 USC 333) and
regulations in 29 CFR 1911.10 and 29 CFR 1912.3, OSHA was required to consult
with that committee in the formulation of regulatory proposals which would
apply to employment in construction. OSHA presented the proposed regulatory
text and pertinent explanatory materials to the ACCSH and consulted with them
on March 14, 1990. The Committee submitted comments and suggestions which
were discussed in the proposal. The Court, on May 2, 1990 granted OSHA's
further motion and extended the time to issue the proposal until July 12,
1990, in order to allow coordination of the proposal with other regulatory
agencies, in particular EPA.

The proposed revisions were published July 20, 1990 (55 FR 29712). The date
for close of the public comment period in the NPRM was September 25, 1990
with the public hearing scheduled to commence October 23, 1990. However,
several interested parties requested additional time for comment on the NPRM
due to the breadth of issues it presented. OSHA felt the objective of
developing a complete rulemaking record would be served and extended the
period for submission of public comments and for notices to appear at the
informal hearing until December 3, 1990. The Agency also rescheduled the
informal hearing to begin January 23, 1991. In the notice extending the time
periods, OSHA also explained more clearly that the ACCSH report referenced in
the NPRM was submitted by the labor representatives on that committee and not
by the committee as a whole (55 FR p. 38703, September 20, 1990).

The informal hearing was held for 13 days from January 23 to February 8,
1991. At the close of the hearing Administrative Law Judge Sheldon Lipson set
April 12, 1991 as the close of the post-hearing comment period and June 12,
1991 as the close of the post-hearing briefing period. Subsequently on
request, Judge Lipson extended these periods to April 26 and June 26
respectively. BCTD requested OSHA extend the post-hearing briefing period 4
weeks to allow additional time to fully address all issues of concern due to
the extent and complexity of the records. OSHA granted this request and
notified participants that the post-hearing briefing period was extended to
July 24, 1991.

On November 3, 1992, by Federal Register notice, OSHA re-opened the
comment period to allow supplementary public comment on options to protect
workers from inadvertent exposure to asbestos in buildings (57 FR 49697).
This issue, not part of the Court's remand order, was broached by the Agency
in the preamble to the proposal, and had been the subject of litigation
brought by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) against EPA. In 1988
the Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO petitioned the
Environmental Protection Agency for regulation of asbestos in public and
commercial buildings and subsequently sued the Agency. This resulted in the
convening of a series of "Policy Dialogue" meetings established by EPA in an
attempt to reach agreement on issues concerning asbestos in public and
commercial buildings. As discussed in the NPRM of July 20, 1990, OSHA and a
variety of other interested parties participated in the meetings which took
place between May 1989 and May 1990. These groups included realty interests,
lenders and insurance interests, unions, asbestos manufacturers, public
interest groups, asbestos consultants and contractors and states. The group
failed to agree on all issues, but did generally agree that the presence of
asbestos should be known to building service workers. The major area of
disagreement in the group dealt with the characterization of risk to general
building occupants and office workers. The group also did not agree on the
need for specific federal asbestos inspection requirements.

SEIU and other unions also participated in this rulemaking and urged OSHA to
issue a building inspection rule. After discussions with EPA and review of
the record concerning how best to protect employees against unknowing
exposure the Agency published a request for comment on a regulatory approach
to protect building service workers. The approach would require certain
high-risk materials in accessible building/facility areas be designated
presumptive asbestos containing materials and thus be treated as if they
contained asbestos, until or unless the presumption was rebutted through
sampling or specific information in the owner's possession relation to
construction specifications. The notice also asked for comments on the Health
Effects Institute (HEI) report which had been submitted to the record after
the close of the post-hearing briefing periods. The notice resulted in
submission of an additional 60 sets of comments, and the comment period
closed on January 4, 1993.

The record of this rulemaking consists of over 55,000 pages. OSHA has worked
closely with EPA so that the regulations of both agencies are compatible to
the extent OSHA's mandate allows.

II. Pertinent Legal Authority

Authority for issuance of this standard is found primarily in sections 6(b),
8(c), and 8(g)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the
Act), 29 U.S.C. 655(b), 657(c), and 657(g)(2) and in the Construction Safety
Act, 40 U.S.C. 333. Section 6(b)(5) governs the issuance of occupational
safety and health standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical
agents. Section 3(8) of the Act defines an occupational safety and health
standard as:

* * * A standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or
more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably
necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places
of employment.

The Supreme Court has said that section 3(8) applies to all permanent
standards promulgated under the Act and requires the Secretary, before
issuing any standard, to determine that it is reasonably necessary and
appropriate to remedy a significant risk of material health impairment.
Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607
(1980).

The "significant risk" determination constitutes a finding that, absent the
change in practices mandated by the standard, the workplaces in question
would be "unsafe" in the sense that workers would be threatened with a
significant risk of harm. Id. at 642. A significant risk finding, however,
does not require mathematical precision or anything approaching scientific
certainty if the "best available evidence" does not warrant that degree of
proof. Id. at 655-656; 29 U.S. 655 (b)(5). Rather, the Agency may base its
finding largely on policy considerations and has considerable leeway with the
kinds of assumptions it applies in interpreting the data supporting it, Id.
655-656; 29 U.S. 655(b)(5). The Court's opinion indicates that risk
assessments, which may involve mathematical estimates with some inherent
uncertainties, are a means of demonstrating the existence of significant
risk.

The court further stated:

It is the Agency's responsibility to determine in the first instance what it
considers to be a "significant" risk. Some risks are plainly acceptable and
others are plainly unacceptable. If, for example, the odds are one in a
billion that a person will die from cancer by taking a drink of chlorinated
water, the risk clearly could not be considered significant. On the other
hand, if the odds are one in a thousand that regular inhalation of gasoline
vapors that are 2% benzene will be fatal a reasonable person might well
consider the risk significant and take the appropriate steps to decrease or
eliminate it. (I.U.D. v A.P.I., 448 U.S. et 655).

OSHA has always considered that a working lifetime risk of death of over 1
per 1000 from occupational causes is significant. This has been consistently
upheld by the courts. See the recent discussion in the cadmium preamble 57 FR
42102, 42204 and the earlier asbestos preambles.

OSHA believes that compliance with these final amendments to reduce the PEL
to 0.1 f/cc as a time-weighted average measured over 8 hours will further
reduce a significant health risk which existed after imposing a 0.2 f/cc PEL.
OSHA's risk assessment accompanying the 1986 standard, showed that lowering
the TWA PEL from 2 f/cc to 0.2 f/cc reduces the asbestos cancer mortality
risk from lifetime exposure from 64 deaths per 1,000 workers to 7 deaths per
1,000 workers. OSHA estimated that the incidence of asbestosis would be 5
cases per 1,000 workers exposed for a working lifetime under the TWA PEL of
0.2 f/cc. Counterpart risk figures for 20 years of exposure are excess cancer
risks of 4.5 per 1,000 workers and an estimated asbestosis incidence of 2
cases per 1,000 workers.

OSHA's risk assessment also showed that reducing exposures to 0.1 f/cc would
reduce excess cancer risk to 3.4 per 1,000 workers and a 20 year exposure
risk to 2.3 per 1,000 workers. OSHA concludes therefore that reducing the
exposure limit to 0.1 f/cc will further reduce significant risk.

OSHA's current estimates of employee exposure in the various operations
covered by these standards are referenced in the Regulatory Impact Analysis
found later in this document. Additional exposure estimates, based on record
evidence are referenced throughout this document in the relevant preamble
discussion concerning each operation.

In the Court of Appeals litigation, AIA challenged OSHA's use of the PEL to
calculate the residual risk remaining after the standard is implemented. AIA
contended that workers would actually be exposed to average levels
significantly below the PEL because employers would be required to engineer
down to levels well below the PEL to assure that random fluctuations would
not result in an OSHA compliance officer measuring an exposure level over the
PEL during a routine inspection. Therefore, AIA contended, in calculating
residual risk, OSHA should assume that employees will be exposed to average
levels that are between one-half and one-quarter of the PEL. The Court
implied that such an argument might have merit if factually supported and
suggested that OSHA should make its own calculations of the relation between
permissible exposure limit and the actual exposures such a limit would
produce. (838 F.2d at 1266) Having carefully considered the issue, OSHA
concludes it would be unrealistic to base its risk assessment on the
assumption that employers will engineer to levels significantly below the
PEL. First, as discussed below, the PEL of 0.1 f/cc is at the limit of
feasibility for those workplaces in which asbestos levels are most difficult
to control, and an assumption that average exposures will be substantially
below the PEL will clearly be unrealistic for such workplaces. Second, OSHA
found in issuing the 1986 standard that AIA's argument about uncontrollable
fluctuations was exaggerated because such fluctuations could be minimized
through proper inspection and maintenance of engineering controls and through
proper training and supervision of employees whose work practices affected
exposure levels. (51 FR at 22653). Third, OSHA's enforcement policy gives
employers the opportunity to show that a compliance officer's measurement
over the PEL is unrepresentatively high and does not justify a citation, thus
alleviating any concern employers might have that they will be cited on the
basis of a single measurement that results from uncontrollable fluctuations.
Fourth, even if some employers are sufficiently risk-averse to engineer down
to well below the PEL to avoid a slight risk of citation, OSHA cannot base a
realistic risk assessment on the assumption that most employers will do so.

The 0.1 f/cc level leaves a remaining significant risk. However as discussed
below, and in earlier documents, OSHA believes this is the practical lower
limit of feasibility for measuring asbestos levels reliably. However the work
practices and engineering controls specified below for specific operations
and required respirator use will in OSHA's view further reduce the risk. As
discussed below, OSHA has carefully reviewed all the public suggestions to
further reduce significant risk and has adopted those which have merit.

After OSHA has determined that a significant risk exists and that such risk
can be reduced or eliminated by the proposed standard, it must set the
standard "which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible on the basis
of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material
impairment of health* * *," Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The Supreme Court has
interpreted this section to mean that OSHA must enact the most protective
standard necessary to eliminate a significant risk of material health
impairment, subject to the constraints of technological and economic
feasibility. American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan, 452
U.S. 490(1981). The Court held that "cost-benefit analysis is not required by
the statute because feasibility analysis is." Id. at 509.

Authority to issue this standard is also found in section 8(c) of the Act.
In general, this section gives the Secretary authority to require employers
to make, keep, and preserve records regarding activities related to the Act.
In particular, section 8(c)(3) gives the Secretary authority to require
employers to "maintain accurate records of employee exposures to potentially
toxic materials or harmful physical agents which are required to be monitored
or measured under section 6." Provisions of OSHA standards which require the
making and maintenance of records of medical examinations, exposure
monitoring, and the like are issued pursuant to section 8(c) of the Act.

Because the revisions to the asbestos standards are reasonably related to
these statutory goals, the Secretary finds that these standards are necessary
and appropriate to carry out is responsibilities under the Act.

"Response to recommendations of public to further reduce risk": As noted
above, this rulemaking proceeding is a response to a remand order of the
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Court determined that in the
earlier 1986 rulemaking, OSHA had not sufficiently explained its decisions
not to adopt certain regulatory provisions recommended by participants in
that rulemaking. In particular, the Court of Appeals held that it is OSHA's
"duty to keep adding measures so long as they afford benefit and are
feasible, up to the point where (it) no longer finds significant risk," and
that it is OSHA's duty to consider the reasonableness of adopting them. 838
F.2d at 1269. The Court noted that OSHA need not justify its failure to adopt
all suggested provisions: rather, the Agency must defend not adopting only
those provisions demonstrated by their advocates, "to be feasible to
implement and will provide more than a de minimis benefit for worker health."
The Court further explained, "(n)aturally the force of the evidence and
argument that OSHA must offer to defend its choice will vary with the force
of the proponent's evidence and argument." Id at 1271.

In this final rule, based upon the record evidence, OSHA is adopting certain
regulatory recommendations made in the earlier rulemaking, is rejecting other
recommendations, and is issuing other provisions which are based on, but are
altered versions of yet other recommendations in the earlier rulemaking. In
addition, new, different and expanded provisions also have been urged for
adoption by participants in this rulemaking. These participants represent
labor, public interest and industry interests. The Agency is adopting,
rejecting and changing these recommendations as well.

A large portion of this preamble is devoted to the Agency's explanations of
these regulatory decisions. OSHA believes that its reasons when it has
adopted or has not adopted recommended provisions are well supported by the
evidence and that the reasons for its choices are stronger than the contrary
arguments. In general, OSHA believes that the extent of its burden to refute
claims of benefit for a recommended provision depends on the extent of the
supporting data. If the data are valid and extensive, OSHA's burden is
greater. If however, the claim of benefit is based on opinion, refutation by
OSHA need not be grounded in data, but may be based on OSHA's well reasoned
and expert contrary opinion.

In sum, OSHA's decision not to adopt recommended provisions to reduce
asbestos related risk reflects the Agency's expert judgment, often where
available data creates considerable uncertainty, that the provisions would
not offer more than de minimis benefit in reducing a still significant risk.
Many recommendations were unsupported by data showing benefit. For example,
it was recommended to prohibit high speed burnishing of asbestos-containing
floor tile. However, the data do not show a measurable reduction of airborne
asbestos fiber levels, based on actual fiber counts using such practices.
Other recommended provisions simply do not reduce a still significant risk.
For example, requiring very low clearance samples (analyzed by transmission
electron microscopy) to deregulate all "regulated areas" to assure that
EPA/AHERA level of 0.01 f/cc is met does not appear to be necessary to reduce
a significant risk to employees. There is an extremely low (although
speculative) risk of asbestos related disease estimated at such clearance
levels, and, there is evidence that immediate clearance sampling does not
predict later concentration levels.

OSHA discusses the recommendations made by participants in the preamble
sections which cover the recommended provisions. The following is a list of
the major recommendations made by public which are discussed later:

15. Regulate activities involving "friable" asbestos-containing material
differently from those involving "non-friable" asbestos. Recommended by
Edison Electric Institute, (Ex. 7-145 , at e.g., 8 for quantity cut-offs for
SSSD activities.) 16. A clearance fiber level of 0.04 f/cc was recommended by
SESAC who stated that such a requirement was needed to "ensure that the
asbestos work area is safe to enter by unprotected personnel after the
asbestos work operation is completed." (Ex. 7-77).

Relationship to Indoor Air Quality Proposed Rule

On April 5, 1994 at 59 FR 15968, OSHA proposed a new standard for indoor air
quality. The proposed regulation included a clause making brief reference to
asbestos. See Paragraph (d)(8) at page 16036. That reference was unintended
as OSHA, intends to cover all asbestos issues in the final asbestos rule
where full consideration has been given to them. OSHA will not create new
requirements in a final Indoor Air Quality Standard that are specifically
designed to control asbestos exposures, and will announce that it is
withdrawing the asbestos clause in paragraph (d)(8) at the commencement of
the indoor air hearing. Accordingly there is no need for parties to submit
asbestos-related materials into the Indoor Air record.

III. Summary and Explanation of Revised Standards

These final standards constitute OSHA's response to the remaining issues
raised for the Agency's reconsideration by the United States Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit. The specific issues raised by the Court are: the
establishment of operation-specific permissible exposure limits; the
extension of reporting and information transfer requirements; the expansion
of the competent person requirement to all employers engaged in any kind of
construction work; and, the clarification of the small scale, short duration
operation exemption from the requirement to establish a negative-pressure
enclosure. For convenience OSHA is summarizing here its response to each of
these issues. They are discussed in depth below. Also discussed below are the
other changes OSHA has made which are not in direct response to the remand.

Issue 7. "Establishment of Operation Specific Exposure Limits": The court
remand causes OSHA to consider establishing operation-specific permissible
exposure limits to the extent feasible, as needed to eliminate significant
risk of illnesses caused by asbestos exposure. OSHA proposed to decrease the
PEL to a uniform 0.1 f/cc. OSHA believes that this limit is feasible for most
industry sectors to reach most of the time (55 FR 29720). However, OSHA
explained that PELs lower than 0.1 f/cc are difficult to reliably measure.
However OSHA has followed a more effective approach to lowering exposures for
those sections and operations where lower exposures can be achieved. This
approach is triggering protective provisions based on the kind of operation
undertaken, rather than measured exposure levels. This approach is consistent
with some other health standards (e.g., lead, coke ovens).

A major reason for this approach for construction and shipyards is that
measured levels of exposure often fail to define risk and are often not
received before the work is completed. This was partly explained in the
proposal. There OSHA noted that for removal jobs, highly variable amounts of
asbestos are generated, "reducing the predictability of exposure levels from
one monitoring event to the next. Moreover, measured asbestos levels often
cannot be used to determine the need for (specific controls) . . . because of
the time required by the laboratory to complete the test and report the
results." (55 FR at 29715-16). Thus, it would be unproductive to leave
employees unprotected while initial monitoring results are being analyzed;
and in many cases, even prompt reporting of exposure levels during the
setting up of the controls would not predict exposures during the actual
removal.

A significant risk remains at the PEL of 0.1 f/cc, and it is feasible to
attain lower levels for some workers exposed to asbestos. OSHA has therefore
considered whether to establish different PELs for different operations based
on the lowest exposure limits that can feasibly be achieved in those
operations and that are needed to eliminate significant risk. OSHA has
decided not to do so because the operation-specific work practices mandated
in the standard will be a most cost-effective means of assuring that
significant risk is eliminated to the extent feasible.

Asbestos has been the subject of extensive rulemaking by OSHA and other
agencies, and the operations that expose employees to asbestos are well known
and thoroughly studied. Moreover, given the shift away from asbestos products
wherever substitutes are available, it appears unlikely that major new uses
will be found for asbestos in the future. OSHA has therefore been able to
focus its rulemaking effort on evaluating the work practices that will best
reduce asbestos exposures in the specific operations that expose workers to
asbestos. The result is a standard that relies heavily on mandated work
practices that will, in most situations, result in employee exposure well
below the PEL. In effect, the mandated work practices will assure that each
asbestos worker is exposed to the lowest feasible level for the operation in
which that worker is engaged. This approach was taken in the 1986
construction standard. There, OSHA "tiered" its construction standard "to
apply increasingly stringent requirements to those work operations associated
with the highest exposures." (51 FR at 23706). Rather than two
classifications as in 1986 (small-scale and abatement work), OSHA now divides
construction work into four classes and has made additional limited
distinctions based on measurable variables such as amount of material
disturbed.

Since OSHA's approach assures that each employee is exposed to the lowest
feasible level of asbestos, no additional protection would be gained by
establishing a series of different PELs for different operations. Such an
approach would add cost and complexity to employers' compliance duties and to
OSHA's enforcement duties without benefiting worker health. PELs lower than
0.1 f/cc would be particularly unsuitable as compliance criteria because it
is difficult to reliably measure lower levels. Because such measurements are
unreliable, if lower PELs were established, measurements taken by employers
and by OSHA would provide an uncertain basis for determining whether
employers have fulfilled their compliance duties. However, both employers and
OSHA can easily determine whether the work practices prescribed in the
standard are being followed. The mandated work practices thus assure that
employees are better protected than a series of different PELs while reducing
compliance burdens on employers and easing the agency's enforcement burden.
Therefore, rather than set operation-specific permissible exposure limits,
OSHA proposed to further reduce risk by requiring certain additional work
practices. The operations for which mandatory work practices are required
would otherwise result in employee exposure that is significant. OSHA
believes that these controls are feasible, reasonable, and necessary.

OSHA also proposed, in the general industry standard, to link the dates when
engineering controls would be required to reach the new lower PEL with the
EPA Ban and Phase-out Rule. This linkage is no longer an option since the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated the ban and it is not yet
clear which asbestos-containing products will no longer remain in commerce,
and staged phase-outs of asbestos containing products are not required.

Issue 3. "Small Scale Short Duration Definition": The Court asked that OSHA
clarify the exemption for "small scale, short duration operations" from the
negative-pressure enclosure (NPE) requirements of the construction standard.
The negative pressure enclosure requirements are a substantial set of
requirements. They include creating a system of regulated areas with a sealed
work area under negative pressure, decontamination facilities and procedures,
clean room facilities and procedures and shower facilities, and other
practices to reduce worker exposure and spread of contamination outside the
work area. In that standard, NPEs were required for all removal, demolition
and renovation work except for small scale short duration operations.

The Court suggested, based on its view of the Agency's earlier intent, that
OSHA limit the exemption to work operations where it is impractical to
construct an enclosure because of the configuration of the work environment.
In an earlier response to the remand order, published in the Federal
Register (54 FR 52024, December 20, 1989), OSHA declined to amend the
regulatory text on the small-scale, short duration issue, without conducting
supplemental notice and comment rulemaking. The Agency explained "that
explicitly limiting the exemption to situations where negative pressure
enclosures are impractical might not reduce employee risk from asbestos
exposure." (54 FR at 52026). OSHA stated that in the supplemental rulemaking,
it intended "to discuss the effectiveness and drawbacks of negative-pressure
enclosure, glove bags, and alternative control systems; and to specify more
clearly under what circumstances various control systems may be used." (54 FR
at 5207). OSHA also noted that the small-scale, short duration issue is
related to the scope of the "competent person" requirement, which the 1986
standard lifted for operations which conformed to the exception, and thus
combined consideration of both issues would be appropriate.

Accordingly, in July 1990, OSHA proposed related changes in both provisions
"small scale, short duration" operations would be redefined in terms of
general criteria, as well as the 1986 approach of listing specific examples.
However, the underlying premise remained the same as in the 1986 standard:
i.e. exemptions to the negative-pressure enclosure requirement for removal,
renovation and demolition projects and limited to jobs which conformed to
specified criteria. "Competent" persons, according to the 1990 proposal, were
to be required as supervisors on all asbestos-related construction worksites,
instead of as in the 1986 standard, that required competent persons only for
non "small-scale, short term jobs." Required training for competent persons,
would vary, however, depending on the kind of asbestos-related job needing
supervision.

The final provisions resolving these issues, are different from the
proposal. Four classes of increasingly hazardous types of construction
activity are matched with increasingly stringent control requirements. Class
I asbestos work means activities involving the removal of asbestos containing
material (ACM) and presumed asbestos containing material (PACM) which is
"high risk." Class II asbestos work means activities involving the removal of
ACM and PACM which is not "high risk." Class III asbestos work means
activities involving repair and maintenance where ACM and PACM is disturbed.
Class IV asbestos work means maintenance and custodial activities during
which employees contact ACM and PACM and activities to clean up waste and
debris containing ACM and PACM. Each class includes work with similar
exposure levels and with similar exposure risks. Each has a prescribed set of
controls and work practices. Basically only Class I work, high-risk
activities, require negative-pressure enclosures. The standard allows other
designated proven control systems in limited circumstances and provides for
yet-to-be-developed systems if certain backstop provisions are met. As
indicated in its earlier responses to the Court, and its public notices of
proposed rulemaking, OSHA has evaluated available control technologies and
has concluded that the use of negative- pressure control enclosures should be
regulated in terms of when they are required rather than when they are not.

In a major departure from the language of both the 1986 standard and the
proposal, OSHA is deleting the term "small scale, short duration" from the
regulatory text. Instead, the agency is distinguishing high- from lower-risk
operations through the use of the classification system described above. Work
that was exempted from the negative pressure enclosure requirements in the
existing standard because it was of "small-scale, short-duration" are
considered to be Class II and Class III work in this amendment. The agency
finds that the term "small-scale, short term" is too limiting, is confusing,
and cannot be defined with sufficient precision to serve the purpose of
distinguishing high risk asbestos-disturbing activity from activity of
reduced risk.

The term is limiting because it focuses on a fraction of the circumstances
and criteria which define lower risk work with asbestos- containing material.
For example, removing asbestos-containing products like transite panels,
likely will not result in significant exposure, even if conducted for more
than one day, if there is use of a few simple controls. As much as the scope
and duration of the job, the materials themselves, their condition and the
work-practices used define hazard potential. OSHA had tried to include these
concepts under the "small-term, short-duration" exception in the current
standard, by reference to examples. However, the breadth of the examples led
the court to observe that "the exception as now worded seems to erase the
rule." (838 F. 2d at 1279).

In the 1990 proposal OSHA tried to identify the conditions and operations
which separated higher risk work with ACM from lower risk work in its
small-scale, short-term definition. Still anchoring the distinction however,
was OSHA's belief that the time a job took, and the amount of material
involved, primarily determined risk. Based on the record of this proceeding,
OSHA now finds that these are relevant, but not exclusive, factors.

OSHA finds also that use of the term is confusing. In 1986, in its list of
activities considered "small-scale, short-term," OSHA listed some which are
neither small-scale or short-term, but were regarded as lower risk, such as
roofing work. To cure this confusion, OSHA proposed, in 1990 to limit the
"small-scale, short duration" exemption to a subset of renovation, removal
and demolition operations which took less time, and/or involved small areas.
Even for these activities a temporal or volume cutoff was difficult to
define, and the proposed definition contained numerical criteria, which
varied depending on which activity was defined. In addition, it proposed to
exempt other activities, such as roofing, regardless of the size of the
project, from the negative-pressure enclosure requirement. EPA uses the term
"small-scale, short-duration" to describe cut-offs which are much higher than
those proposed by OSHA for its reporting requirements for asbestos
renovation, demolition and removal work under NESHAPS. And under EPA's worker
protection rule which applied to state and local government workers in OSHA
non-state plan states, reporting requirements for asbestos "abatement"
projects, do not apply to projects involving "less than 3 linear feet or 3
square feet of friable asbestos material." (40 CFR 763.124).

Many objections to the proposed definition were received by the Agency.
After reviewing this record, and in light of the variety of interpretations
of the term "small-scale, short-duration," OSHA determined that it is
inappropriate to use that term as the equivalent of lower risk activities.
Once OSHA decided to include other control methods in the "preferred
category" for high risk asbestos work, neither a "small-scale,
short-duration" definition nor an exemption from negative-pressure enclosure
requirement was central to OSHA's regulatory scheme. As explained more fully
below, although OSHA no longer uses the term "small -- scale, short-term" to
exempt activities from universal requirements, OSHA uses the related terms
"small-scale" and "reduced exposure potential" as part of a larger
classification scheme.

Issue 8. "The extension of reporting and information and transfer
requirements":

A. Notification to OSHA

OSHA had proposed expanded notification and reporting provisions in response
to the Court's remand order concerning two issues. The first is whether OSHA
should require employers to give the Agency advance notification of
asbestos-related jobs. BCTD, in the 1984 rulemaking had suggested that OSHA
should require all construction industry employers to file reports concerning
any building demolition, renovation or removal project involving asbestos
prior to beginning such a project. Two health enhancing benefits of a notice
requirement were advanced by BCTD. One, is the help such information would
provide the Agency in targeting inspections. The other is a claimed reduction
in risk because of the consciousness-raising and self-education provided by
the notice process.

The Court noted that the BCTD proposal would "arguably generate better
information for "selecting targets for inspection and that it was based on
"uncontradicted (and unanalyzed) evidence of non-de minimis benefits."
(relating to compliance enhancement). (838 F.2d at 1278). It remanded the
issue to the Agency for further explanation or rebuttal.

OSHA responded in 1990, by proposing a new provision to require employers to
notify OSHA in writing prior to engaging in demolition, renovation, and
removal operations which are not small-scale, short-term operations. OSHA's
proposed notice requirement shared many core elements with EPA's then current
and proposed notification requirements under NESHAPS. OSHA noted that "(t)he
proposed notification is modeled after the notification requirement
concerning asbestos abatement projects that occur in conjunction with
building demolition and renovation operations. OSHA noted further that
"(e)mployers can satisfy the OSHA (proposed) notification requirement simply
by forwarding a copy of the EPA form to the OSHA area office when complying
with EPA's asbestos NESHAP." (55 FR at 29731). Both EPA's and OSHA's
proposed, notification requirements would exempt less extensive operations.
In OSHA's case, the exemption would have applied to small-scale,
short-duration operations as otherwise defined in the standard. EPA's cutoffs
are annual amounts: 260 linear feet on pipes and 160 square feet on other
facility components. OSHA noted that many asbestos jobs would meet the
notification requirements of both agencies, however there would be an
indeterminate, yet significant number for which EPA notification would not be
called for, but OSHA's proposed requirement would apply.

Most public comment opposed the requirement. The major objection was the
burden on the employer from completing and mailing the notification form.
Further, some commenters questioned the overall usefulness of the
notification requirement in promoting compliance (See comments of
Shipbuilder's Council of America Ex. 7-2.) BCTD continued to argue for
extensive reporting requirements for the reasons stated above. A few other
commenters supported its position. (Ex. 7-5, 7-6, 7-34, 7-64, 7-95, 7-118,
7-132, 7-149, 141, 144).

OSHA has carefully reviewed all the comments. Based on the review and
subsequent developments, the final regulation scales down OSHA's proposed
notice requirements. OSHA is now requiring advance notification of Class I
(mainly large-scale removals) only when the employer intends to utilize
controls other than a negative pressure enclosure which meets the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this standard, and in some circumstances,
where modifications of glove bag systems, glove box systems and other control
systems described in paragraph (g) are made.

There are a number of reasons for OSHA's decisions. OSHA believes that the
potential benefits in direct risk reduction from a separate OSHA reporting
requirement are unlikely. There are already extensive EPA and state reporting
requirements which OSHA requirements would partly duplicate. The EPA and
state requirements already create any incentive to comply that such reports
could create. Similar OSHA reports would not increase this benefit.
Information which may be useful to OSHA in targeting inspections can be
retrieved by information-sharing with the EPA while avoiding overlapping
reports. OSHA notes that the Paperwork Reduction Act requires that federal
agencies avoid clearly duplicative reporting requirements. Various comments
challenge the value of duplicative requirements (e.g., Ex. 7-17, 7-20, 7-22,
7-28, 7-39, 7-46, 7-47, 7-50, 7-54, 7-72, 7-74, 7-76, 7-77, 7-78, 7-79, 7-81,
7-86, 7-87, 7-88, 7-89, 7-102, 7-103, 7-108, 7-112, 7-125, 7-133, 142, 147).
Thus, although OSHA's and EPA's reporting requirements are only partially
duplicative, these considerations have influenced OSHA's decision not to
require extensive pre-job reporting. OSHA is concerned that in reviewing the
volume of reports which may be spawned by a separate OSHA requirement which
exceeded the EPA requirements would strain OSHA area offices enforcement
resources and drain such resources from other enforcement efforts. However,
OSHA finds that advance reporting is appropriate where information is related
to new or modified control methods for Class I work. In such cases,
heightened attention to the data supporting their use will result from the
requirement to send them to OSHA.

BCTD's contrary view that compliance would be enhanced was based in part on
its contractor's report, submitted after the 1984 hearing. The report
estimated that an advance reporting requirement would reduce "the number of
workers with TWA exposures over 0.1 f/cc" up to 30% in drywall removal and
demolition, and lesser amounts in other construction work. These estimates
were based on the opinions of a seven person "focus group" which included
three representatives of member unions of BCTD. No methodology was presented
for deriving these quantitative estimates, and no supporting data has been
submitted in either rulemaking (see brief Ex. 143 at 198). The Court referred
to the report in its decision as uncontradicted, but that was because it was
submitted late in the rulemaking procedures.

The Agency believes based on its experience that these estimates of specific
quantifiable benefits are speculative. But more importantly, the now-existing
EPA and state reporting requirements and OSHA's use of that data for
targeting inspections will achieve those benefits without duplicative
reporting requirements. Further, OSHA made various changes to the final
standard which will also achieve some of these benefits. These include the
expanded provisions on hazard communication, which will alert employees in
all asbestos renovation, removal and maintenance work that presumed asbestos
containing material is present; that require competent persons to evaluate
the work site before work is begun, by informing employers that OSHA is
setting up information sharing systems with EPA to access employer notices
sent to that Agency, and that require employers who use new and modified
control systems to notify OSHA.

Help for OSHA in targeting inspections from the submission of advance
reports is the other claimed benefit from a reporting requirement. Some
participants claimed that because pre-job reporting was helpful to EPA in
targeting its inspections for compliance with NESHAP requirements, an OSHA
pre-job reporting would similarly benefit this Agency. EPA did not testify at
the hearing, but available information shows that its reporting system
provides useful information to that Agency's enforcement program. NESHAPS
reporting is made mostly to 45 state agencies, delegated by EPA to implement
the asbestos NESHAP. Reporting in EPA Region II, is directly to the Regional
Office. These reports are the source of two data bases: the National Asbestos
Registry System (NARS), which develops a historical record of asbestos
contractors, updated quarterly: and the ACTS system, which is a local data
base on the compliance history of each contractor. OSHA is informed that ACTS
is a tool that delegated agencies may use for day-to-day tracking of asbestos
activities. EPA's evaluation of the reports submitted to it and other
information used in its NESHAP enforcement effort constitute a valuable
resource for OSHA.

In 1991 both agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to share
information which will aid their enforcement efforts. Pursuant to that MOU,
OSHA is developing with EPA an information sharing system based on the
reports submitted both to EPA and to various states upon delegation from EPA
to access that information to help OSHA target asbestos removal jobs. OSHA
also believes that at this time some EPA delegated states, and OSHA state
plan states have worked out ways to share notifications. OSHA believes that
utilizing the EPA data to assist in targeting inspections will be more
effective than duplicative reporting requirements.

The Agency believes, based on its own enforcement experience that a limited
notification requirement may enhance compliance in specified circumstances.
Employers who choose to use new or modified control technology to reduce
exposures in Class I asbestos work, must notify OSHA in advance, using EPA's
NESHAP reporting form. Such information about new and/or modified asbestos
control technology submitted to OSHA by employers who wish to use it will
provide accessible information for the Agency to use to evaluate such
technologies. OSHA believes that requiring employers to routinely submit to
the Agency their data in support of claims of the effectiveness of new
technology will help OSHA, employers and employees and their representatives
to evaluate its effectiveness promptly.

Shipyard Employment Standard

One area of the proposed standard to which SESAC raised objection was the
requirement that OSHA be notified 10 days prior to initiating work on large
scale asbestos operations. In addition to reiterating many of the objections
to the provision raised by others, they pointed out that often they must
immediately work on ships which enter their shipyards and turn them around
quickly and that the delay caused by the notification would be overly
burdensome. As OSHA explained above, notification of OSHA is required only
when Class I operations are undertaken and alternate methods of control,
other than the negative-pressure enclosure methodology, is to be employed.
This provision applies both in the construction and shipyard employment
standards.

B. Notification of Other Employers and Subsequent Owners

The Court remanded the issue of whether OSHA should, as recommended by BCTD,
require employers contracting asbestos-related work to establish, maintain
and transfer to building owners written records of the presence and locations
of asbestos or asbestos products, in order to facilitate identification and
prevention of asbestos hazards. As noted in the 1990 remand proposal, the
Court remanded this issue so that the Agency may reach "its own judgment on
the issue" of whether it was legally empowered to adopt such a requirement
(See BCTD v. Brock, supra at 1278). OSHA concludes that BCTD has made a
persuasive case for the need to expand the notification provisions to other
employer and building owners and from them to subsequent employers with
exposed employees. This is a necessary way to informing subsequent employers
that their employees are at risk of asbestos exposure and of the need to take
appropriate precautions. Requiring building owners to maintain and provide
this information is by far the most effective way of notifying employers of
exposed employees who are doing work many years after the asbestos was
identified.

OSHA has developed an information transfer scheme concerning the presence of
asbestos in buildings and structures which may present a hazard to employees
which is more comprehensive than the recommendation of BCTD. The approach
places the primary compliance burden on the building and/or facility owner,
even though the employees at risk may not be the owner's direct employees.
Thus, this final standard confirms OSHA's tentative view in the proposal,
that it has authority to require building owners who are statutory employers
to take necessary and appropriate remedial action such as notifying other
employers, to protect employees other than their own (see 55 FR at 29729).

The proposed hazard communication provision limited the building owner's
communication obligations to "available" information concerning the presence
and location of asbestos. Now, in the final standard, the building owner must
communicate his knowledge of the presence and location of ACM, based on
"available" information, and, new to the final standard, of the presence and
location of certain high risk materials, which are presumed to contain
asbestos (PACM), unless the building was constructed or renovated after 1979
or is rebutted using laboratory analysis. Further details of this provision
are spelled out later in this preamble.

Issue 9. "Competent Person". The Court remanded to OSHA to determine whether
employers engaged in any kind of asbestos related construction work should be
required to designate "competent persons" to oversee safety measures, or
whether, as in the 1986 standard, employers should only be required to
designate trained "competent persons" for asbestos removal, demolition, and
renovations operations that are not small-scale, short duration. The court
requested that OSHA either expand the "competent person" requirement or
provide a more persuasive explanation of its refusal to do so.

OSHA proposed in 1990 to expand the requirement. Under the proposal,
supervision of all asbestos construction worksites by a "competent person"
would be required; the training of a competent person would be keyed to the
kind of asbestos operation. However, the proposal left undecided whether
onsite, continuous supervision of all asbestos-related work would be required
for all asbestos work. The final standard resolves these issues. A
"competent" person, as defined in the general construction standards, must
supervise all work under the asbestos construction standard. That person must
be "capable of identifying existing asbestos * * * hazards in the workplace,
and has the authority to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them *
* *" 29 CFR 1926.58[b].

OSHA reiterates its statement in the proposal that "all construction site
employees would benefit from the presence of a competent person to oversee
asbestos-related work" (55 FR at 29726). However, the need for on-site
supervision varies with the hazard potential of the work undertaken. All
workers performing Class I construction work must have continuous access to
an on-site supervisor, who meets the training requirements for designation as
a "competent person" under this standard. Supervision for Class II and III
work does not always require a continuous on-site "competent person,"
therefore the standard requires inspections at "sufficient" intervals and at
employee request. Supervision of installation of asbestos containing
construction materials and Class IV work must also be accomplished by
complying with the "generic" requirement for "frequent and regular"
inspection [Paragraph (0)(2)].

Training for "competent persons" can be accomplished in a number of ways and
meet the standard's performance requirements. For Class I, II and III work,
the "competent person" must take a course such as a course under the EPA
Model Accreditation Plan for accredited contractor/supervisor, project
designer or management planner course, or their equivalent in content,
duration, and criteria for success. Class IV work may be part of larger
construction projects, in which case the competent person trained to
supervise the project should supervise the on-site cleanup activities which
constitute the Class IV work.

Explanation of Provisions of the Final Standards

The following is a provision-by-provision discussion of the revised asbestos
standards. Thus all the provisions in all three standards: general industry,
construction and shipyard employment, relating to a topic will be discussed
under the heading for that topic. For example, under the scope heading, the
scope of the general industry standard will be first discussed, then the
scope of the construction standard, and finally the scope of the shipyard
employment standard. Similarly, under the methods of compliance heading, the
provisions in each standard relating to that topic will be discussed. Where a
discussion applies to all three or to two of the separate standards it will
be so noted and will not be repeated for each standard. OSHA believes that
this format will help the public understand where and why the various
standards contain different provisions relating to the same subject matter.
Further, it will avoid repetition in explanations where a common policy
rationale applies to more than one asbestos standard.

(1) Scope and Application

Paragraph (a). General Industry Standard. 29 CFR 1910.1001. The general
industry standard covers all activities (except agriculture), covered by the
Act which are not otherwise covered by the construction asbestos standard, 29
CFR 1926.1101, and the new shipyard employment standard, 29 CFR 1915.1001.
Consequently, marine terminals and longshoring would be covered by the
general industry standard if asbestos were being loaded, unloaded or stored.
The asbestos construction standard, in existence since 1986, lists activities
which it covers. This includes construction activities though they may take
place at a factory or agricultural premises. The new shipyard employment
standard, likewise lists its covered activities.

Formerly, the general industry standard had been considered the generic
asbestos standard. However, because of dramatic changes in the market for
asbestos containing products, the standard now covers only four industry
segments, three of which are distinct from each other, and all are
diminishing in volume and employee population. Brake and clutch repair is the
activity engaged in by the largest group of asbestos exposed workers,
although most of them are exposed sporadically and at low levels. Next
largest is custodial workers who do not perform their duties as part of
construction activities, but clean surfaces, sweep, buff and vacuum floors
and wash walls and windows in manufacturing plants and a wide variety of
public and commercial buildings. Although in the preamble to the proposal and
throughout this proceeding OSHA and most commenters had treated these workers
as part of the construction work force, OSHA concludes that pure custodial
work is not a construction activity, and should be regulated under the
general industry standard. However, to avoid misinterpretation or for
purposes of clarity of duties to affected parties, OSHA also is including
provisions protecting custodial workers who may unknowingly contact
asbestos-containing material in the construction and shipyard employment
standards. In this way, there will be no advantage to interpreting coverage
under any one of the asbestos standards, rather than another.

The primary and secondary manufacture of asbestos containing products,
completes the roster of identifiable general industry sectors. Once, along
with installers of asbestos-containing products, the core of the
asbestos-exposed work force, asbestos-containing product manufacturing
employees are rapidly dwindling in number. OSHA expands on this theme its on
economic analysis later in this document. At the time of the proposal, EPA
had prohibited, at three stated intervals from August 1990 to August 1996,
the future manufacture, importation, processing and distribution in commerce
of asbestos in almost all products (54 FR at 29460, July 12, 1989).
Subsequently the ban was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit. EPA has interpreted the decision as invalidating only
those portions of the ban for products that were manufactured or imported at
the time of the decision. Despite the remaining legitimacy of manufacture and
use of asbestos-containing products, the industries which make and maintain
them and the employees who are employed in those industries are declining
rapidly and dramatically.

Paragraph (a) Construction Standard. 29 CFR 1926.1101. The
construction standard covers (but is not limited to) the following activities
involving asbestos: demolition, removal, alteration, repair, maintenance,
installation, clean-up, transportation, disposal, and storage. It has been
redesignated 29 CFR 1926.1101 to reflect the reorganization of health
standards covering construction made June 30, 1993 (58 FR 35076). The scope
and application remain generally unchanged from the proposal and earlier
standard. However, 3 issues arose. First, new language, proposed in 1990 is
retained in the final. "* * * coverage under this standard shall be based on
the nature of the work operation involving asbestos exposure, not on the
primary activity of the employer." This point was made clearly in the
preamble to the 1986 standards; however, it was not specifically stated in
the regulatory text and subsequently some confusion arose among the regulated
community. Therefore, it is included as a clarification of the intended
application of the standards. Asbestos work which involves removal, repair,
maintenance or demolition is therefore explicitly regulated by the
construction standard even if such work is performed within a facility
otherwise regulated under the general industry standard.

Certain commenters stated that maintenance and custodial work should not be
regulated by the construction standard, because they are not construction
operations. OSHA notes that it has made a distinction between maintenance and
custodial work, that maintenance work is covered in the construction and
shipyard employment standards, and that custodial work is covered in all
three standards, when it is incidental to work otherwise covered by a
standard.

"Naturally Occurring Asbestos in Soil": Prior to the publication of the 1990
asbestos proposal, OSHA received submissions describing asbestos deposits
which occur as natural formations in the U.S. and that when disturbed, for
example during earthmoving projects or during mining operations, drilling,
blasting or sawing operations, the asbestos in the deposit can become
airborne and expose workers to significant levels of asbestos fibers (Ex.
3-10, 3-11). The Agency proposed to clarify that such activities were covered
under its asbestos construction standard and that methods of control were to
be employed to avoid worker exposure during disturbances of naturally
occurring asbestos deposits. OSHA sought additional information regarding any
additional provisions it would adopt to protect workers engaged in these
activities. In the proposal, the Agency also requested any information on
appropriate methods to use to determine the presence of asbestos in soils,
the effectiveness of wet and/or other methods to control worker exposures and
information on effective decontamination methods for exposed workers.

There were relatively few comments received on this issue. Some felt that
asbestos in soil resulted in negligible exposures and that wetting to prevent
fugitive emissions during earth moving would be sufficient control (e.g., Ex.
7-6). Another participant said there was a lack of control technology and
called for further study to determine the extent and location of problems
(Ex. 7-63). The industrial hygienists who had raised the issue of worker
exposure to naturally occurring asbestos, described the occurrence of
asbestos in the soil of Fairfax County, Virginia (Ex. 7-143). They reported
that water misting during disturbance of asbestos-containing soils was
effective in controlling exposures. They recommended the use of negative
pressure air purifying respirators, protective clothing and showers to
control exposures.

OSHA finds that the record indicates that certain construction sites in
mostly well-defined areas contain deposits of naturally occurring asbestos.
In such areas, airborne asbestos during earthmoving activities may result in
significant exposures. In such cases, wetting of the excavation site, often
required by local authorities, should be sufficient to suppress measurable
airborne asbestos concentrations. Information regarding the presence of
asbestos in the vicinity of construction sites may be available from state
environmental agencies, the United States Geological Survey, and the Bureau
of Mines.

In the absence of information which is readily available showing asbestos
contamination of soil in the immediate vicinity of a construction site, the
employer is not required to take any action under this standard.

Workers engaged in shipyard industry activities, i.e. shipbuilding, ship
repair, and other work in shipyards, who are exposed to asbestos have been
protected by inclusion in 1986 general industry and construction standards
published in 1986. Like in other non-construction industries, OSHA intended
employees working in shipyards to be protected by the general industry
standard, except for those operations which were specifically listed as
covered by the construction standard, i.e. renovation, removal, demolition
and repair.

In 1988, OSHA convened the Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory Committee
(SESAC), comprised of members from labor, private industry, state and federal
government, and professional and trade associations. The Committee's charter
directed it "to develop a single set of comprehensive health and safety
standards for Shipyards."

In the 1990 NPRM, OSHA sought information and comment on how best to provide
equivalent protection to workers engaged in shipyard activities. The Agency
noted that although it had considered these operations to be regulated under
the general industry standard in the 1986 rulemaking, subsequent
considerations led OSHA to observe that many shipyard industry activities are
construction-like in nature.

In response, SESAC drafted alternative regulatory text which it submitted to
this rulemaking docket with the recommendation that it be adopted as a
vertical asbestos standard for shipyards (29 CFR 1915, Ex. 7-77). The
Committee stated: "Maritime is neither general industry nor construction --
it is maritime. "This committee was formed by the Secretary of Labor with the
objective in its charter to "recommend * * * one comprehensive set of
standards* * *for the shipbuilding, ship repair and shipbreaking industries*
* *" (Advisory Committee Charter).

Additional comment and testimony on this issue was submitted during the
rulemaking. For example, Charles Sledge, Jr. of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in
his testimony stated that he did not feel that shipyard industry work meets
the definition of construction work defined in 29 CFR 1910.12 (Ex. 28).
Although he preferred keeping shipyard industry operations under the general
industry asbestos standard, he recommended that OSHA apply the
SESAC-recommended standard to shipyard activities rather than the
construction asbestos standard. He pointed out that most asbestos work in
shipyards takes place in fixed locations and does not have the transient
nature of true construction work. Mr. Sledge also felt that shipyards have
developed ways to stay below the PEL and that any change would result in
requiring expensive alterations of facilities, and a need for additional
training.

J. Collins of Naval Operations objected to OSHA's proposal to apply the
construction asbestos standard to shipyard industry because he considered
some of the provisions infeasible on vessels (Ex. 7-52). In his opinion the
construction standard requires showers be located at the entrance to the
regulated area and that this was not reasonable on small ships like
submarines. Other comments, (apparently by others) in this submission
expressed the view that shipyard industry activities should be regulated
under the construction standard since they are often identical to
construction work. To the same effect see Ex. 7-52.

BCTD stated in its testimony that:

* * * [It] agrees with OSHA that, because the manner in which maritime
employees work with and are exposed to asbestos is similar to the experience
of construction employees, the provisions of the construction standard should
apply in that industry. In particular, whenever the likelihood exists that
asbestos-containing materials will be disturbed in ship repair and
renovation, that activity should be conducted under a negative air apparatus.
[Ex. 34, p.2]

The rulemaking process revealed that there was confusion in the shipyard
industry sector as to which of the standards applied to the various
activities within the shipyard. In his testimony, the Chairman of the
Shipyard Employment Standards Committee said: "In the case of asbestos, both
1910 and 1926 are both applied in various shipyard operations. This is
confusing to the shipyard work force who are required to follow one set of
rules one day and another set the next day." (Tr. 337) In the current
revision of the asbestos standards, OSHA has determined that a separate
vertical standard for shipyards is appropriate. OSHA understands that many
spokespeople for the shipyard industry believe that compliance with OSHA's
asbestos standards will be facilitated in shipyards if only one standard
applies to those workplaces. Because OSHA wishes to promote compliance, and
because the Agency acknowledges that some shipyard conditions are unique,
OSHA is issuing a standard that will apply only to shipyard industries. It is
neither less nor more rigorous than the general industry and construction
standards. How it differs from the two other asbestos standards will be
discussed under the topic heading for each substantive provision, in the
preamble text which follows. The recommendations will be discussed more
fully, following a summary of the relatively small number of comments
received by the Agency.

Most provisions in the final shipyard standard include some relevant
provisions similar to the revised construction standard. In addition OSHA has
incorporated some of the specific recommendations made by the Shipyards
Employment Standards Advisory Committee discussed below.

Relatedly, the Great Lakes Carriers Associates, representing fleets on the
Great Lakes, wanted assurance that asbestos exposures of seamen aboard
vessels will continue to be regulated by the Coast Guard under an existing
Memorandum of Understanding between the Coast Guard and OSHA (Ex. 7-8). OSHA
does not intend to alter the agreement it has with the Coast Guard. Rather,
the maritime standard under discussion concerns shipbuilding, ship repair and
ship-breaking activities (29 CFR part 1915, Shipyards).

(2) Definitions

Paragraph (b) General Industry, Construction and Shipyard
Employment. OSHA has deleted some definitions which appear in the 1986
standards, and has added others. Alphabetically, the changes are as
follows:

The 1986 standards contained an "action level" of 0.1 f/cc, one half the PEL
of 0.2 f/cc. The action level provides a "trigger" for certain duties, such
as monitoring, medical surveillance and training. The Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit instructed OSHA to consider reducing the
action level to 0.05 f/cc should the PEL be reduced to 0.1 f/cc. In most
single-substance air contaminant standards it has issued, OSHA has set an
action level equal to half the PEL. The action level triggers duties of
monitoring, medical surveillance, and training, and assures that workers who
are not exposed at or above the PEL but who may nevertheless be exposed to
levels that present a risk to their health receive a degree of protection.
The action level thus helps to reduce residual risk that may remain at the
PEL.

In these standards, OSHA has taken a different approach to protecting
workers exposed to levels of asbestos below the PEL. Instead of a numerical
action level, employer duties involving training and medical surveillance are
triggered by exposure to ACM or PACM or by the type of work being done.
Additionally, work practices also are required regardless of measured
exposure levels. OSHA considers this approach to better protect employees
than an action level, which triggers training and medical surveillance duties
based on monitoring results. OSHA's approach is particularly appropriate for
asbestos because in many cases, asbestos levels below the PEL cannot be
reliably measured, and duties tied to an action level might therefore be
triggered by measurements of dubious accuracy.

In the 1990 proposal, OSHA did not propose an action level based on its
tentative conclusion that workplace asbestos concentrations below the PEL
could not be reliably and reproducibily measured (55 FR 29722). The Agency
asked for comment on the advisability of setting an action level of 0.05
f/cc, and specifically asked whether the methodology for measuring airborne
asbestos levels had advanced sufficiently to allow reliable and reproducible
measurements at that level. Evidence subsequently submitted to the rulemaking
record indicated that levels as low as 0.05 f/cc could not be consistently
measured reliably. The rulemaking reinforces OSHA's tentative conclusion that
workplace asbestos levels of 0.05 f/cc cannot be measured reliably (see NIOSH
Tr. 215, SESAC Tr. 345). Because employers cannot obtain reliable and
reproducible measurements of airborne asbestos levels at concentrations of
0.05 f/cc, it would be infeasible to base training and medical surveillance
requirements on worker exposure to asbestos at such a level. OSHA therefore
declines to establish an action level of 0.05 f/ cc. OSHA recognizes in some
circumstances the general advantages of an action level, and if future
monitoring technology is developed which would allow reliable, consistent
determinations at lower fiber levels, OSHA will reconsider whether an action
level would be appropriate for the asbestos standard and whether action under
section (6)(b)(7) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act which directs
OSHA to "make appropriate modification in the * * * requirements relating to
* * * monitoring or measuring * * * as may be warranted by experience,
information, or medical or technological developments acquired subsequent to
the promulgation of the relevant standard" is appropriate.

The agency has, however, included provisions that require training and
medical surveillance of employees exposed below the PEL. Thus, like standards
that contain an action level, these standards use training and medical
surveillance to reduce the residual significant risk that remains at the PEL.
The general industry standard requires that all employees who work in areas
where ACM or PACM is present be given a prescribed level of awareness
training. The construction and shipyard standards require training of all
workers who install asbestos-containing products and all workers who perform
Class I, Class II, Class III, and Class IV work. These training requirements
assure that all employees who are potentially exposed to more than de minimis
concentrations of asbestos can recognize conditions and activities that can
lead to asbestos exposure, know of the hazards associated with asbestos
exposure, and are trained to utilize the means prescribed by the standard to
minimize their exposure.

With respect to medical surveillance, the construction and shipyard
standards require medical surveillance of all workers who, for a combined
total of 30 days per year or more, engage in Class I, II, or III work, or who
are exposed above the PEL or excursion limit. Additionally employees who wear
negative pressure respirators are provided with medical surveillance. The
general industry standard requires medical surveillance of all workers
exposed above the PEL or excursion level, with no 30-day per year limitation.
In crafting these provisions, OSHA has attempted to assure that those workers
for whom medical surveillance will provide relevant information and benefit
are entitled to it. In construction and shipyard work, employees who do not
engage in Class I, II, or III work are unlikely to be exposed above 0.05 f/cc
(the potential "action level") because the work practices mandated in the
standard should result in negligible asbestos exposure to workers who do not
specifically engage in asbestos-related work. Employees who engage in only
Class IV work also should not be exposed above 0.05 f/cc because of the lower
asbestos exposures associated with such work. OSHA therefore believes that
the construction and shipyard provisions target medical surveillance where it
is needed.

In general industry, the vast majority of workers who are exposed below the
PEL will also be exposed below 0.05 f/cc. The work practices mandated for
brake and clutch repair, by far the largest general industry segment subject
to the standard, should result in virtually all such workers being exposed
below 0.05 f/cc. Another large general industry segment, custodial workers,
will also be generally exposed below 0.05 f/cc. While some small number of
workers in both categories as well as in the manufacturing of asbestos
products may be exposed between 0.05 f/cc and 0.10 f/cc on some days, the
difficulty of obtaining reliable and reproducible measurements at those
levels makes it difficult to identify those workers accurately. Therefore, if
medical surveillance were triggered by exposure above 0.05 f/cc, the
employees subject to such surveillance would likely be chosen on the basis of
the vagaries of the monitoring process rather than on any realistic
assessment of the risk that they face. OSHA therefore concludes that it would
be infeasible, and would not reduce significant risk, to require medical
surveillance for workers in general industry exposed below the PEL or
excursion limit.

David Kirby of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory stated his belief that:

I'm not sure if the analytical methodology will be able to support this due
to the level of accuracy that's normally associated with trying to take
samples under the normal procedures at that level." (Tr. 105)

NIOSH too testified that "[i]n NIOSH's judgment, the establishment of a PEL
or an action level below 0.1 fiber per cc for most industrial or construction
work sites would be difficult at this period of time" (Tr. 215). Additional
doubt was voiced by the chairman of the Shipyard Employment Standards
Advisory Committee, "* * * an action level, that is 0.05 fibers per cc, is
not appropriate or reasonable due to inconsistencies and non-reproducibility
with the sampling and analytical methodology" and noted concern that shipyard
environments were especially likely to have high levels of background dust
which could overload sampling devices, making determinations at that level
more difficult (Tr. 345). Other commenters supported the proposed deletion of
an action level (Ex. 7-2, 7-39, 7-99,7-104, 7-120, 7-146).

Asbestos

In 1992 OSHA amended the definition of "asbestos" from the 1986 standards.
The non-asbestiform varieties of the minerals actinolite, tremolite and
anthophyllite are no longer included in the definition of asbestos. In 1986
OSHA determined that although tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite exist
in different forms, all forms of these minerals would continue to be
regulated. Following promulgation of the rule, several parties requested an
administrative stay of the standard claiming that OSHA improperly included
non-asbestiform minerals. A temporary stay insofar as the standards apply to
the non-asbestos forms of tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite was granted
and the Agency initiated rulemaking, proposing to remove these forms from the
scope of the asbestos standards. Following a public comment period and public
hearing, OSHA issued its final decision to delete non-asbestiform tremolite,
anthophyllite and actinolite from the scope of the asbestos standards (57 FR
24310, June 8, 1992). The Agency, in evaluating the record, found that
"evidence is lacking to conclude that non-asbestiform tremolite,
anthophyllite and actinolite present the same type or magnitude of health
effect as asbestos," and that the failure to regulate them as asbestos does
not present a significant risk to employees.

Classification of Asbestos Work (Classes I-IV)

In the Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards, OSHA is adding
definitions for four classes of activities which trigger different provisions
in the standard. Those activities presenting the greatest risk are designated
Class I work, with decreasing risk potential attaching to each successive
class. The Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards regulate Class I,
II and III work; all three standards regulate Class IV work.

"Class I" work is defined as activities involving the removal of thermal
system insulation and sprayed-on or troweled-on or otherwise applied
surfacing ACM (asbestos-containing material) and PACM (presumed
asbestos-containing material); "Class II asbestos work" is defined as removal
of ACM or PACM which is not TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM; "Class III asbestos
work" is defined as repair and maintenance operations which are likely to
disturb ACM, or PACM; Class IV operations are custodial and housekeeping
operations where minimal contact with ACM and/or PACM may occur.

Class I asbestos work involves removal of surfacing materials sprayed or
troweled or otherwise applied to surfaces, and removal of thermal system
insulation. Surfacing materials include, for example, decorative plaster on
ceilings or acoustical ACM on decking or fireproofing on structural members.
Thermal system insulation includes, for example, ACM applied to pipes,
boilers, tanks and ducts. Based on the record, OSHA has determined that the
prevalence of these materials and their likelihood of significant fiber
release when disturbed, requires rigorous control methods which OSHA has set
out in the standards.

Class II asbestos work involves removal of any other asbestos-

containing material -- which is not TSI or surfacing ACM. Examples of Class
II work are removal of floor or ceiling tiles, siding, roofing, transite
panels. EPA refers to these materials as "miscellaneous ACM" in the "Green
Book." (Ex. 1-183) Work practices and other control measures to be employed
in removing these materials are discussed later in this preamble under the
methods of compliance section.

Class III asbestos work are defined as repair and maintenance activities
involving intentional disturbance of ACM/PACM. Class III is limited to
incidental cutting away of small amounts (less than a single standard waste
bag) of ACM/PACM, for example, to access an electrical box for repair.

The first three classes of asbestos work are intended to cover the kinds of
asbestos work which under the 1986 construction standard were designated
"asbestos removal, demolition, and renovation operations," including
"small-scale, short-duration operations, such as pipe repair, valve
replacement, installing electrical conduits, installing or removing drywall,
roofing, and other general building maintenance or renovation."

The classes are exclusive. For example, the stripping of 50 linear feet of
thermal system insulation, which has not been positively identified as
non-asbestos containing material is Class I, for it is the removal of PACM.
Repair of a valve covered by ACM is Class III, since "removal" is not taking
place. Removal of roofing material containing ACM is Class II, since roofing
material is not high-risk ACM. OSHA believes dividing activities by "Classes"
will be clearer than the prior system in the 1986 standard which prescribed
different precautions for "small scale, short duration work," which it then
defined by example. As noted in several places in this document this was
confusing to employers, to the Court and to OSHA itself. A more extensive
discussion of the "Class" system of designating work with asbestos-containing
materials is contained in the discussion on "Methods of Compliance"
provisions later in this preamble.

Class IV work is defined as maintenance and custodial activities during
which employees contact ACM and PACM and activities to clean up waste and
debris containing ACM and PACM. This includes dusting surfaces, vacuuming
carpets, mopping floors, cleaning up ACM or PACM materials from thermal
system insulation or surfacing ACM/PACM. Workers may contact ACM or PACM when
performing a wide variety of routine jobs that result in incidental
disturbance, such as changing a battery in a smoke detector attached to a
ceiling containing ACM or PACM, polishing floors containing asbestos, and
changing a light bulb in a fixture attached to an asbestos containing
ceiling.

For custodial work, the Class IV characterization applies to situations
where there is an indication that surfaces are contaminated with ACM or PACM.
One indication would be identification of the ACM or PACM sources of the
debris or dust; such as visibly damaged, or degraded, ACM or PACM in the
vicinity. Visibly damaged, degraded, or friable ACM or PACM are indications
that surface dust could contain asbestos, and Class IV protection applies.
OSHA requires in (g)(9) that such dust or debris be assumed to be ACM or
PACM. Another indication could be an analytical test to determine whether the
surface dust itself contains asbestos. Since dust of carpets may not be
visible, visible dust on other surfaces along with the presence of ACM/PACM
nearby would indicate that cleaning the carpet is Class IV work.

The general industry standard also includes requirements for maintenance and
custodial operations which mirror Class IV requirements in the construction
standard. These would apply to activities which are not traditionally viewed
as construction activities, and which, as contended by certain participants
in this proceeding, may not be covered by the Construction Safety Act (40
U.S.C. 333). As further discussed in the preamble discussion relating to
paragraph (a), Scope and Application, examples of these activities are
clean-up in areas where asbestos-containing dust or debris is present and
removing light fixtures located near "high risk" surfacing material.

Some Class IV work was covered by the earlier standards, yet the coverage
was incomplete. The general industry standard regulated housekeeping
activities, and housekeeping activities were also included in the
construction standard to be covered if they were part of a construction job.
Precautionary maintenance guidelines to avoid disturbing ACM were addressed
in Appendix G of the construction standard. OSHA believes that the switch
from the regulated "housekeeping" activities to the Class IV definition is
clearer and reduces loopholes. The custodial activities covered in either
event can clearly create asbestos dust and expose custodial employees to that
dust. Data in the record show that custodial activities can produce not
insignificant asbestos exposure levels. Therefore, the work practices
required to reduce that dust are clearly necessary to reduce significant risk
to custodial workers.

By establishing a Class IV, OSHA is rejecting various recommendations that
some activities, potentially involving asbestos disturbance, would result in
de minimis risk, and as such should not be regulated (See further discussion
concerning Methods of Compliance). The new definition of Class IV work, the
removal of the non-mandatory appendix, and coverage of these activities both
under general industry standard and the construction standard and shipyard
employment standards clarify the standards' application to such work.

OSHA requested comments on setting a cut-off for asbestos-containing
material with minimal asbestos content. There was overwhelming support for a
1% cutoff for ACM which would be consistent with EPA rules. The Hazard
Communication Standard labeling and training provisions require labeling of
materials which contain more than 0.1% asbestos. EPA defines asbestos
containing material as: "Any material containing more than one percent
asbestos." (NESHAP and Green Book p. 30). OSHA has no information to indicate
what proportion of building materials fall into the category of containing
more than 0.1% and less than 1.0% asbestos. EPA has listed building materials
by their asbestos content and among those included on the list, only
surfacing ACM ranged down to 1% (and up to 95%) (EPA "Purple Book," Ex.
1-282). Some participants, including NIOSH have expressed concern that even
1% may be below the accuracy level for optical microscopic methods. (Ex.
7-145, 162-39). Among those who dealt with the issue, most supported the 1.0%
cutoff, most citing its consistency with EPA (Ex. 7-5, 7-6, 7-21, 7-43, 7-51,
7-74, 7-76, 7-99, 7-106, 7-111, 7-120, 7-137, 151, 162-59, 162-29). OSHA
agrees that a cutoff of 1.0% asbestos is appropriate for asbestos containing
building materials and has included this value in its definitions of ACM.

Closely Resemble

Included in the construction and shipyard employment standards is a
definition for the term "closely resemble," which is the term used in the
regulatory text to limit the use of historic exposure data to predict
exposures. It is defined as circumstances where "the major workplace
conditions which have contributed to the levels of historic asbestos exposure
are no more protective than in the current workplace." OSHA's intent is to
allow data reflecting past exposures to be used to predict current exposures
only when the conditions of the earlier job were not more protective, i.e.,
employees were not better trained, work practices were not used more
consistently, and no more supervision was present.

Competent Person

OSHA has amended the definition of "competent person" in the construction
standard and included it in the Shipyard Employment Standard as a "qualified
person." The definition is based on the definition of "competent person" in
the general construction standard, 29 CFR 1926.32(f), i.e. "one who is
capable of identifying existing asbestos hazards in the workplace and who has
the authority to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them," but adds
a specific training qualification. The training provisions require a
competent person take a course which meets the requirements of EPA's Model
Accreditation Plan (40 CFR 763, Subpart E). OSHA believes that specific
training is needed so a "competent person" will have adequate knowledge to
perform the competent person's responsibilities for Class I and II work. A
Class II and Class IV "competent person" must undergo "Operations and
Maintenance" (O&M) training as developed by EPA. Further discussion of these
issues is found later in this document.

The revised definition deletes from the definition a list of duties to be
performed by the competent person. Duties are more appropriately set out in
other regulatory paragraphs which are prescriptive, rather than in the
"definition" section. In response to the court's remand, OSHA has also
expanded the scope of the competent persons's duties so that a competent
person must supervise all asbestos activities under the construction
standard. As noted, these requirements are set forth in other regulatory
paragraphs which govern conditions of work in covered activities.

The shipyard employment standard does not use the term "competent person,"
because that term has a unique definition under Part 1915. OSHA has accepted
SECSAC's recommendation that the term "qualified person" should be used to
designate a person with the same duties under the shipyard employment
standard.

Critical Barriers

OSHA is adding a definition for the term "critical barriers" whose use is
required in certain asbestos operations. These are defined as plastic
sheeting or equivalent material placed over openings to the work area. These
barriers are effective when they seal all openings into a work area. Critical
barriers can be other physical barriers sufficient to prevent airborne
asbestos in a work area from migrating to an adjacent area.

Disturbance

OSHA has added a definition for "disturbance" to all three standards to
distinguish it from removal. In this definition disturbance means any contact
with ACM/PACM which releases fibers or which alters its position or
arrangement. It also includes operations which disrupt the matrix or render
it friable or which generate visible debris from it. A quantitative cutoff of
disturbance is given -- the amount of ACM/PACM so disturbed may not exceed
the amount that can be contained within one standard sized glove bag or waste
bag. OSHA believes that certain jobs, e.g., repairing leaking valves, often
require asbestos to be cut away to gain access to a component. If the amount
of asbestos so "disturbed" is contained in one bag, Class I precautions are
not necessary.

Glove Bag

The term "glove bag" is also defined in the standards as a plastic bag-like
enclosure affixed around ACM with glove-like appendages through which
material and tools may be handled.

Homogeneous Area

The presumption that a material contains asbestos may be rebutted by
sampling a "homogeneous" area of the presumed ACM to determine its asbestos
content. OSHA has defined "homogeneous area" in much the same way it is
defined by EPA as an area of surfacing material or thermal system insulation
that is uniform in color and texture.

Industrial Hygienist

A definition for "Industrial Hygienist" is included in the standards as a
professional person qualified by education, training, and experience to
anticipate, recognize, evaluate and develop controls for occupational health
hazards.

Initial Exposure Assessment

"Initial Exposure Assessment," including "Negative Initial Exposure
Assessment" are terms used in the construction and in the shipyard standards.
It means a required assessment by a "competent person" concerning the
exposure potential of a specific asbestos job, or series of similar asbestos
jobs. A "Negative Initial Exposure Assessment" is such an assessment in which
it is concluded that employee exposures during the job are likely to be
consistently below the PELs. Assessments must be based on information and
data which are allowed pursuant to criteria in paragraph (f). The results of
"Initial monitoring," no longer required for each job, should be considered,
but do not necessarily constitute an adequate "assessment" if they would not
represent all worst-case employee exposures during the entire job.

Modification

Alternatives or modifications to listed control methods are allowed when the
employer demonstrates that such a "modification" still provides equivalent
worker protection. OSHA does not intend that changes in a control method
which decrease the safety margin of a material or omitting a procedure be
permitted by calling it a "modification." A "modification" means a changed or
altered procedure, material which replaces a procedure, material or component
of a required system. For example, a new test proven successful in detecting
leaks might be substituted for required "smoke tests." Omission of a
procedure or component, or a reduction in the stringency or strength of a
material or component is not considered a "modification" under this section.

Presumed Asbestos-Containing Material (PACM)

In all three standards, "presumed asbestos containing material," "PACM"

means thermal system insulation and sprayed on and/or troweled or otherwise
applied surfacing material in buildings constructed no later than 1980. OSHA
has found that these materials are "high risk" if asbestos-containing. OSHA
bases this on the record, including the HEI Report which states that "thermal
system insulation and surface treatments (fireproofing, acoustical and
decorative finishes) stand out in importance for their potential for fiber
release and subsequent exposure to [building] occupants" (Ex. 1-344, p. 4-5).
Although these materials may have been installed in small quantities after
1980, OSHA finds that their installation is unlikely after that date.

Project Designer

OSHA has adopted a definition like that of EPA for a "Project Designer"

-- a person who has successfully completed the training requirements for an
abatement project designer established by 40 USC 763.90(g).

Removal

"Removal" means all operations where ACM and/or PACM is removed from a
building component, regardless of the reason for the removal. It includes
those maintenance, repair, renovation and demolition activities where ACM
and/or PACM removal is incidental to the primary reason for the project, as
well as where removal of ACM and/or PACM is the primary reason for the
project. Removal should be distinguished from "disturbance" which includes
"cutting away" a small amount of ACM or PACM.

Regulated Area

"Regulated area" is included in all three standards. All three, like the
1986 standards, require the establishment of such an area where the employer
believes that the PEL will be exceeded. Now, the construction and shipyard
employment standards add that such area must be established also where Class
I, II and III activities will take place, regardless of exposure levels.
Also, the specific actions required of the employer to demarcate a regulated
area are deleted from the definition, and are placed in the appropriate
prescriptive paragraph, in this case paragraph (e)(6).

(3) Permissible Exposure Limits

Paragraph (c) General Industry, Construction and Shipyard Standards.
In all three standards, the eight hour time-weighted average permissible
exposure limit is changed from an eight hour time weighted average (TWA) of
0.2 f/cc to a TWA of 0.1 f/cc in the revised final rules. As noted in the
1990 proposal and in the preamble discussion above, OSHA's decision to reduce
the PEL across the board responds to the Court's directive to consider
whether to establish operation-specific exposure limits, since the Court
noted that on the record of the 1986 standards, it appeared feasible to
reduce the PEL to 0.1 f/cc limit in many industry sectors. OSHA has rejected
"operation-specific" PELs for the wide variety of operations that expose
employees to asbestos. OSHA proposed and these final standards adopt required
operation-specific work practices, in addition to an across-the-board PEL
reduction to 0.1 f/cc. OSHA expects that the risk reduction accomplished by
this two-pronged approach will be at least as great as would
operation-specific PELs. First, the required controls are found to be capable
of achieving maximum exposure reduction on an operation-by-operation basis.
Second, since OSHA has found that specific work practices are feasible, the
Agency expects a higher compliance rate and thus, greater risk reduction than
if practices were not specified. Third, in operations where particular
controls are specified, the PEL is a backstop; alerting employers where
additional controls are needed or closer surveillance is required; in all
operations the PEL is a measurable and comparable value, which cannot be
exceeded without further action by the employer to reduce
exposures.

At the time of the proposal in 1990, the question of whether the proposed
PEL reduction would reduce a still significant risk had already been given a
tentative answer by the Court. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in
remanding the issue of lowering the PEL to the Agency, noted that based on
the 1984 risk assessment, the excess risk stemming from average exposures of
0.1 f/cc "could well be found significant." BCTD v. Brock, 838 F.2nd at
1266." (55 FR at 29714).

In the proposal, OSHA stated that it believes "that compliance with proposed
amendments to reduce the PEL to 0.1 f/cc as a time-weighted average measured
over 8 hours would further reduce a significant health risk which exists
after imposing a 0.2 f/cc PEL" (55 FR 29714, July 20, 1990). OSHA's 1984 risk
assessment showed that lowering the TWA PEL from 2 f/cc to 0.2 f/cc reduced
the asbestos cancer mortality risk from lifetime exposure from 64 to 6.7
deaths per 1,000 workers. OSHA estimated that the incidence of asbestosis
would be 5 cases per 1,000 workers exposed for a working lifetime under the
TWA PEL of 0.2 f/cc. Counterpart risk figures for 20 years of exposure are
excess cancer risks of 4.5 per 1,000 workers and an estimated asbestosis
incidence of 2 cases per 1,000 workers.

OSHA's risk assessment also showed that reducing exposure to 0.1 f/ cc would
further reduce, but not eliminate, significant risk. The excess cancer risk
at that level would be reduced to a lifetime risk of 3.4 per 1,000 workers
and a 20 year exposure risk of 2.3 per 1,000 workers. Consequently
significant risk would be reduced substantially. However, OSHA concluded
therefore that continued exposure to asbestos at the TWA permitted level and
action level would still present residual risks to employees which are
significant.

The Court did not ask and OSHA did not undertake to review its earlier risk
assessment in the proposal. At the hearing in January, 1991, Mr. Martonik,
spokesperson for OSHA was asked by Mr. Hardy, representing the Safe Building
Alliance (SBA), if OSHA was planning to update the earlier risk assessment as
part of this proceeding. Mr. Hardy stated that "a number of parties have
suggested to OSHA that its risk assessment from 1984, as relied on in the
1986 final rule, is outdated" (Tr. 30). Mr. Martonik responded that "we will
have to consider all information we receive and determine relevance in this
rulemaking after the record is closed. (Ibid).

Other parties questioned OSHA's continuing reliance on the 1984 risk
assessment. The Asbestos Information Association (AIANA) testified that
"OSHA's 1984 risk assessment fails to take into account the scientific
community's consensus that chrysotile exposures hold lower risk than the
Agency estimates * * * we do not believe that the risk assessment that is six
years old relies on the best available evidence." AIANA requested OSHA to
convene experts, as part of this hearing process "to revise its asbestos risk
assessment." (Tr. 530), this was the major objection to OSHA's earlier risk
assessment. Some participants voiced similar objections. (Ex. 7-88, 7-110,
7-104, 7-120, Ex. 145, 151), while others were of the opinion that chrysotile
had the same potency as other forms of asbestos (see Ex. 119 C, 1-136, 125,
Att. 6, 143 Att C, 143 Att. D.).

Although as noted above, the issue of the continuing validity of OSHA's
earlier risk assessment was not remanded to the Agency for reconsideration,
implicit in OSHA's proposal to lower the PEL to 0.1 f/ cc is OSHA's
determination based on the 1984 risk assessment, that the lower exposure
limit is necessary to reduce a still significant occupational risk.

After a comprehensive review of the evidence submitted concerning the
validity of the 1984 risk assessment, OSHA has determined that it will
continue to rely on the earlier analysis. The Agency believes that the
studies used to derive risk estimates remain valid and reliable, and that
OSHA's decision to not separate fiber types for purposes of risk analysis is
neither scientifically nor regulatorily incorrect.

There are at least three reasons for OSHA's decision not to separate fiber
types. First, OSHA believes that the evidence in the record supports similar
potency for chrysotile and amphiboles with regard to lung cancer and
asbestosis. The evidence submitted in support of the claim that chrysotile
asbestos is less toxic than other asbestos fiber types is related primarily
to mesothelioma. This evidence is unpersuasive, and it provides an
insufficient basis upon which to regulate that fiber type less stringently.

As OSHA explained in the preamble to the 1986 standards,

* * * to summarize the data on risk differential by asbestos fiber type,
human epidemiological studies have suggested that occupational exposure to
amphiboles is associated with a greater risk of mesothelioma than is exposure
to chrysotile * * * No clear risk differential for lung cancer or other
asbestos-related disease has been demonstrated by epidemiological studies.
Animal experiments, however, have indicated that chrysotile is a more potent
carcinogen than amphiboles when administered by inhalation or intrapleural
injection * * * (51 FR at 22628).

OSHA agreed with the testimony of Dr. Davis, who stated that "the evidence
cannot answer * * * with certainty * * * if "one fiber * * * of amphibole
(is) more dangerous than one fiber * * * of chrysotile." (Ibid).

Second, as stated in the 1986 asbestos standard, even if OSHA were to accept
the premise (which it does not), that chrysotile may present a lower cancer
risk than other asbestos fiber types, occupational exposure to chrysotile
asbestos still presents a significant risk of disease at the revised PEL (See
51 FR 22649, 22652). In particular, asbestosis, the disabling and often fatal
fibrosis of the deep portions of the lung, is caused by exposure to all types
of asbestos. The evidence on this is strong and no new information has been
presented to contradict this. As stated above, OSHA estimated asbestosis
risks at 0.2 f/cc exposures as an unacceptably high 5 cases per 1000 workers.
Thus, asbestosis risks alone justify the regulation for chrysotile.

Lung cancer risks associated with chrysotile exposures are also high -- 6.7
lung cancer deaths per 1000 workers exposed to 0.2 f/cc for a full working
lifetime. OSHA notes that SBA's witness, Dr. K. Crump acknowledged that
"(t)here's not a clear difference, * * * even in humans, for lung cancer * *
* in terms of distinguishing the potency of amphiboles vs. chrysotile." (Tr.
4220).

Third, the record shows that employees are likely to be exposed to mixed
fiber types at most construction and shipyard industry worksites most of the
time. Assigning a higher PEL to chrysotile would present the Agency and
employers with analytical difficulties in separately monitoring exposures to
different fiber types. Thus, regulating different fiber types at differing
levels, would require more monitoring all the time and would produce limited
benefits (51 FR 22682).

Consequently, OSHA believes that its conclusion to treat all asbestos fibers
as having a similar potency in the occupational setting remains valid. Most
of the evidence submitted to the remand rulemaking duplicated evidence
submitted to the 1986 standards' record, or was cumulative to the earlier
body of evidence. For example AIANA appended its 1988 submission to the EPA,
consisting of numerous studies and reports. Some of these documents were
considered by OSHA in the prior rulemaking. There, OSHA had stated that the
1983 Berry and Newhouse study of friction materials manufacturing workers
which found nonsignificant increases in lung cancer mortality, was
inconsistent with other studies showing that low level asbestos exposure
resulted in excess lung cancer mortality, because of the relatively short
follow up period used (51 FR 22618).

Other studies involved lung burden analyses of mesothelioma victims,
apparently showing that the pulmonary content of chrysotile was within the
range of the general population, whereas amphibole content was significantly
elevated compared to the general population (see e.g. Churg, Malignant
Mesothelioma in British Columbia in 1982, Cancer, 2/85, 672). OSHA noted in
the preamble to the 1986 rule, that there is a difference in tissue retention
which would account for the autopsy results and cited a study by Glyseth et
al. (Doc. 33-C, Ex. 312) which supported that explanation. OSHA also noted
that "the differential lung retention of various fiber types has been
demonstrated in animals," citing a study by Wagner which found that animals
exposed to chrysotile fibers developed lung cancer even though a smaller
amount of chrysotile was retained in the lung compared to similar tests with
amphiboles.

Dr. Weill believed that "these differences in tissue persistence may wholly
or partially explain the observations [that exposure to amphiboles are
associated with a higher prevalence of mesothelioma] in human * * *
population * * *. Non-confirmation of fiber type differences in animal
experiments may be related to the much shorter life span * * * [of
experimental animals, which would not allow] the effects of varying
tissue-persistence to be expressed" (Doc. 33-C, Ex. 99, p.18; 51 FR 22628).
Therefore OSHA had reviewed and evaluated in the earlier rulemaking a portion
of the evidence submitted by proponents of differential regulation of fiber
types, and had rejected the claim that chrysotile should be regulated less
stringently.

Some new evidence on the issue of differential risks of asbestos fiber types
was submitted by both supporters and detractors of that theory.

In support of the position that chrysotile asbestos exposure is equivalent
in risk to amphibole asbestos exposure, BCTD submitted studies which
indicated excess mesothelioma cases in workers exposed solely to chrysotile
asbestos (see Ex. 119 C, 1-136, 125, Att.6, 143 Att C, 143 Att. D). In
support of the opposing claim that chrysotile has reduced carcinogenic
potential, AIANA and SBA submitted additional evidence. For example, AIANA
submitted the World Health Organization's 1989 working report which
recommended that the exposure limit for chrysotile should be reduced to 1
f/cc or below (8 hour TWA), where it was recommended that exposure to
crocidolite and amosite asbestos be prohibited (Ex. 21 A, p. 9). In
particular, two papers by Mossman, et. al, are cited as the basis for the
claim that a scientific "consensus" believes that chrysotile carries a
reduced carcinogenic risk (Ex. 1-153, 151). Thus AIANA states that "since
OSHA issued its 1984 asbestos risk assessment, the scientific consensus that
chrysotile asbestos poses lesser risks has solidified" (Ex. 142 at 3).

However, OSHA notes that various participants in this rulemaking, including
NIOSH and Dr. Nicholson, disputed the existence of such a consensus. Dr.
Nicholson and others including Dr. Landrigan, in a letter to Science, (Ex.
1-155), dispute various interpretations of data in Mossman et al.'s paper,
and challenge the conclusion that chrysotile asbestos carries little cancer
risk. Nicholson et al, point out that human studies show excess lung cancer
risk that is proportionate to exposure across all fiber types, and that
animal tests confirm these relationships. OSHA believes that the scientific
community has not achieved "consensus" on these issues.

Among the studies submitted in support of the lowered risk of chrysotile
asbestos, are those of Churg, and others showing that the lung burden of
mesothelioma victims is predominantly amphibole, even though high chrysotile
exposure levels were reported. As noted above, this line of argument was
presented in the earlier asbestos rulemaking, and OSHA had concluded that
lung burden studies are inconclusive. Additional response to this argument is
provided by Dement who notes that "(t)he biological significance of
post-mortem lung fiber burden data has yet to be established. These data are
not useful as a predictor of disease for several reasons. Chrysotile is known
to split longitudinally and partially dissolve in the lung whereas amphiboles
remain in the lungs for years without significant dissolution * * *.
Measurements of tissue fiber burdens many years after first exposure may bear
no relationship to the carcinogenic events which likely have taken place many
years before clinical manifestation of cancer." (Ex. 1-273) BCTD pointed out
in its post-hearing brief, that "Dr. Landrigan testified, while the
observation that chrysotile does not last as long in the lungs as other forms
of asbestos is not new knowledge (Tr. 1074), there is recent evidence that
chrysotile is "the most effective of the three major fiber types at migrating
to the pleura, that it is present in substantial amounts in pleural plaques
and mesotheliomas, even in circumstances where it is not present or minimally
present in the lungs themselves" (Tr. 1074).

The Agency also notes that the HEI report, in summing up its discussion of
its literature search of studies examining the issue of the relative potency
of chrysotile in inducing mesothelioma, stated: "(t)he evidence that
chrysotile rarely causes pleural mesothelioma is not conclusive "* * * and
concluded that the absence of mesothelioma in one of the "two cohorts of
heavily exposed asbestos workers who worked only with chrysotile * * * seems
likely to be due at least in part to chance" (Ex. 1-344 p. 6-23).

HEI concluded that "the mesothelioma risk for chrysotile was an issue of
disagreement; some members of the Literature Review Panel held the view that
a lower estimate should be recommended, as it would be more consistent with
available data. The crucial issues, neither of which can be resolved
unequivocally, are (1) what proportion of the mesotheliomas observed in
groups such as the U.K. textile workers and the U.S. insulation workers were
caused by their exposure to crocidolite or amosite; and (2) whether the best
general estimate of the ratio of mesothelioma to excess lung cancer caused by
chrysotile is provided by the Quebec miners and millers (about 1:4 or 1:5),
or by the South Carolina textile workers handling Quebec fiber (zero)" (Ex.
1-344 p. 6-32).

Thus, although there is some evidence linking chrysotile to a lower
mesothelioma rate than some amphibole fiber types, OSHA believes that there
is insufficient evidence to show that chrysotile does not present a
significant mesothelioma risk to exposed employees. Furthermore, the major
disease linked to asbestos exposure, lung cancer, occurs at the same
frequency among employees exposed to equivalent doses of chrysotile or to
amphibole asbestos fiber types. Indeed, evaluation of all of the evidence
indicates that chrysotile asbestos presents a similar significant risk of
lung cancer and asbestosis as other forms of asbestos. Since these adverse
health effects constitute the majority of diseases related to asbestos
exposure, OSHA is still of the opinion that chrysotile exposure should be
treated the same as other forms of asbestos.

In addition to contentions that OSHA's risk assessment had overstated
asbestos risks because it treated the risks from all asbestos fiber types
equally, other contentions were made that the earlier risk assessment may
have understated the risks from asbestos, because it ignored evidence of the
incidence of pleural plaques, and other asbestos disease which occurred in
workers exposed at low levels, primarily as building custodians. The earlier
risk assessment in 1984 focused on whether there was a significant risk of
cancer and asbestosis at various levels of cumulative exposure. During this
hearing, various labor groups stated their position that the presence of
pleural plaques in asbestos exposed employees is not only a marker of
asbestos exposure, but also an independent "material impairment" because they
are associated with a greater risk of lung function impairment and pleuritic
pain. Pleural plaques are focal areas of fibrous thickening of the pleura,
the membrane lining the lung. Further, suggestions were made that OSHA should
reduce its PELS to correspond to these increased risks of "material
impairment" which occurred at lower exposure levels (see e.g., Ex. 143 at
35-37).

Evidence submitted during the rulemaking consisted of testimony and studies
which in the view of some participants showed lung function decrement and
resulting excess disease among workers exposed at low levels. For example
BCTD witness Dr. Christine Oliver described various studies and concluded:

Pleural plaques * * * were a predictor for increased mortality from lung
cancer and malignant mesothelioma in subsequent years * * * pleural plaques
have also been shown to be associated with decrement in lung function * * *
At the very least, pleural plaques are a marker for exposure, sufficient to
increase risk for lung cancer and for malignant mesothelioma, and they have
also been associated with loss of lung function (Tr. 1035-6).

Dr. Oliver recommended medical surveillance of those exposed to asbestos in
their capacity as custodians in buildings.

The studies considered by Dr. Oliver consisted of one involving 120 Boston
public school custodians (Tr. 1026) which she conducted and found pleural
plaques in 33% (N = 40) of the group. Further she noted that in 21% (of the
40, or 12 individuals) there was no known exposure to asbestos outside work
as school custodian. In 18% of the group and 17 % of those with no outside
exposure to asbestos, she observed a restrictive pulmonary defect,
significantly associated with duration of employment as school custodian.
Other studies described by Dr. Oliver, in the docket include: a study of 666
New York school custodians, reporting only x-ray data (Ex. 47). For all
groups of workers, the lung abnormality seen on x-ray was associated with
duration of work as custodian: a study of 1,117 insulation workers (likely to
have had extensive asbestos exposure) by Dr. Irving Selikoff, in which
workers were followed for up to 27 years prospectively, in which pleural
plaques were found and which were concluded to be predictive of lung cancer
mortality (Tr. 1036 and Ex. 124A): a study, by Balmes (Ex. 124 DD, Tr. 1036,
Ex. 1-374) of approximately 900 school district employees in California were
determined as likely to have been exposed to asbestos. The authors concluded,
"More than 11 percent of workers known to have sustained exposure to ACM in
school building, without history of exposure to asbestos prior to school
district employment, and with at least 10 years of employment with the
district had radiographic evidence of parenchymal asbestosis and/or
asbestos-related pleural thickening" (Ex. 1-374, p. 547). After adjusting for
smoking and age, the relative risk was 1.3 times greater for those with 10
years or more employment compared with those who had just begun working for
the school district.

In addition to the occurrence of pleural plaques which are viewed as
presenting an independent material impairment of health due to low level
asbestos exposures, Dr. Oliver cited other studies which correlated low level
asbestos exposure with mesothelioma. Thus, a study by Dr. H. Anderson (Tr.
1032 and Ex. 124 EE, Ex. 1-374 using information on mesothelioma cases from a
Wisconsin Cancer Registry, analyzed 359 deaths from 1959 to 1989. Using death
certificate occupational information, the researchers hypothesized 41 as
likely to have been exposed to asbestos in buildings. For 10 (34%), no other
likely source of asbestos exposure was identified. The paper concluded that
"individuals occupationally exposed to in-place ACBM are at risk for the
subsequent development of mesothelioma" (Ex. 1-374, p. 570).

SBA submitted a critique of these studies which they commissioned by Drs. H.
Weill and J. Hughes (Ex. 122). They suggested potential biases in these
studies, that Dr. Oliver's study subjects were volunteers, the study had a
low participation rate, they had used a non-standard classification system,
and did not adequately account for age in relating restriction to lung
function. These reviewers concluded that spirometric functional measurements
were not related to the presence of plaques and that reduced lung volume
could result from other factors. Drs. Weill and Hughes also examined the
other studies, and argued that Dr. Selikoff's were "fatally flawed" due to
the potential for development of unmeasured changes during the 27 year period
of follow-up, and that both the Anderson and Balmes studies failed to
adequately adjust for age, smoking and other direct asbestos exposures. Other
reports cited by BCTD were dismissed because of potential sources of bias.

Dr. Oliver rebutted these arguments (Ex 143, Attachment F). She argued that
she had adequate controls, adequately accounted for age and demonstrated that
pleural plaques were significantly associated with both latency and duration
of work as custodian in the total group and in the group with no known other
exposure, that lung restriction was significantly associated with duration of
work as a custodian, and that pleural plaques mark increased risk for lung
cancer mortality.

Dr. Levin also responded to the reviewer's criticism of his studies with Dr.
Selikoff (Ex. 143, Attachment G). He pointed out that all x-rays had been
read by a single reader, Dr. Selikoff, and that there is no evidence that
smoking without asbestos exposure increases appearance of the small irregular
opacities in the lung seen on the x-rays in their study. He further noted
that in his study only actively working custodians were included and were
therefore a "survivor" group and would therefore not be expected to report
pulmonary dysfunction frequently. He claimed that relatively unexposed
subject groups would not be expected to have more than an upper limit of 3%
pleural plaques.

Dr. Anderson also responded to the Weill/Hughes comments (Ex. 143,
Attachment H). He asserted that the review fails to explain how biases would
significantly increase odds ratios in the study, that misclassification often
is random and biases toward not detecting a difference between the study and
control groups. He also questioned existence of evidence that smoking without
asbestos exposure causes pleural thickening or irregular opacities.

The review of available literature, including the studies mentioned above by
the Health Effects Institute, resulted in its the estimation that the
prevalence of pleural plaques in the general population to be about 5% (Ex.
1-344, p. A2-9). Although HEI advised caution in interpreting the existing
studies due to lack of specificity and sensitivity of methods used and
couched its conclusions in cautious terms, they concluded: "* * * there is
now persuasive evidence implicating asbestos-related pleural disease as an
independent cause or indicator of functional impairment and possibly even
disability * * * On the individual level, pleural disease may be the only
indication of asbestos exposure, may explain symptoms and function
impairment, and may predict future deterioration in lung function" (Ex. 1-344
p. A2-12).

OSHA agrees that health effects such as lung function impairment and
pleuritic pain would be considered "material impairment," if substantial
evidence supports the link to pleural plaques. OSHA concludes that the
scientific data indicate that pleural plaques are primarily associated with
asbestos exposure, and that they have occurred and still may at relatively
low exposure levels.

However, OSHA does not believe that the data are available to permit OSHA to
do a separate risk assessment for these effects which would in a major way
add to the present assessment. The risk assessment on which OSHA has based
its significant risk determinations for the 1986 and newly revised standards,
calculated the incidence of mesothelioma, lung and other cancers and
asbestosis, diseases based on a substantial amount of both mortality and
exposure data. The data concerning lung function decrement and pleural
plaques lack exposure information and would make quantitative risk estimates
for these health effects less precise than the data for other forms of
asbestos-related disease upon which OSHA is relying.

A separate risk assessment is also unnecessary. OSHA believes that the
revised regulations are already regulating at the margin of what is feasible,
in terms of levels to be achieved, and controls which are required. OSHA has
imposed necessary, feasible and well supported work practices for custodial
work, which should reduce custodial exposures well below the historic levels
(indeterminate) which may have been experienced by the workers studied in the
above reports.

More generally, there would be remaining significant risk at this new 0.1
f/cc exposure limit if there were not other provisions to these standards.
However, the exposure limit is accompanied by mandated work practice controls
and requirements for hazard communication, training and other provisions.
Together these will very substantially reduce that remaining significant
risk, although the exact amount of that reduction cannot be quantified. In
addition, it would be difficult to measure accurately in the industrial
setting levels lower than those in these standards. OSHA believes its
approach of setting a PEL which is reliably measurable, yet, imposing work
practices and ancillary provisions for operations regardless of measured
fiber levels will result in risk reduction well below that expected from just
enforcing the 0.1 f/cc PEL. Thus, a lower PEL would not produce significant
worker benefit.

(4) Multi-Employer Worksites

Paragraph (d) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards. OSHA is
retitling paragraph (d) "multi-employer worksites." The first provision, the
same regulatory text as in the 1986 construction standard, requires that an
employer whose work requires the establishment of a regulated area must
inform other on-site employers of the asbestos work, and how other employees
will be protected from hazards stemming from that work. In addition, new
provisions follow which set out the compliance responsibilities of employers
on multi-employer worksites.

In 1990, OSHA had proposed more comprehensive provisions governing
communication of asbestos hazards among all employers, building and facility
owners and employees, in a revised paragraph (d). These final standards
expand communication provisions but repositions them in paragraph (k),
"communication of hazards." A discussion of those provisions is found below
in this preamble under that heading.

Paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) set out the compliance responsibilities of
employers on multi-employer worksites. They acknowledge that on asbestos work
sites, like other construction sites, employees exposed to a hazard are not
always the employees of the employer who created the hazard.

Paragraph (d)(2) incorporates the rules now applied in enforcement actions
governing multi-employer construction sites generally, to assure that all
employees on such a site receive the protection intended by the
standards.(See Gelco Builders, Inc. 6 BNA 1104). The standard explicitly
requires asbestos hazards to be abated "by the contractor who created or
controls the source of asbestos contamination."

In addition, paragraph (d)(3) sets forth the duties of the employer of
employees who are exposed to asbestos hazards, but who did not create the
source of contamination. One, such employer may request the contractor with
control of the hazard to take corrective action. For example, if there is a
breach of an enclosure within which asbestos work is being performed, the
employer of employees working outside that enclosure should request the
asbestos contractor who erected the enclosure to repair the breach
immediately, as required by paragraph (d)(2). If the repair is not made, and
if employees working outside the enclosure are exposed to asbestos in more
than de minimis amounts, the employer of those employees should either remove
them from the worksite pending repairs, or consider his employees to be
working within a regulated area and comply with the provisions of paragraph
(e) governing exposure assessments and monitoring of employees who work
within such areas. If the employer of employees exposed to asbestos because
of the failure of controls installed by another contractor, is the general
contractor of the construction project, as such he has supervisory control
over the entire worksite including the regulated area, and is responsible for
violations which could be abated or prevented by the exercise of such
supervisory capacity.

Paragraph (d)(3) of the construction standard states the enforcement rule
that regardless of who created a hazard, the employer of exposed employees is
required to comply with applicable protective provisions to protect his
employees. An example recited in the regulatory text presents the situation
of employees working immediately adjacent to a Class I regulated area. If
there is a breach of the enclosure or the critical barriers surrounding the
asbestos work, employees working immediately adjacent to the work may be
exposed to asbestos. The employer responsible for erecting the enclosure is
required to insure its integrity. However, in the event that such repair is
delayed or not made, the employer of the exposed "bystander employees" must
designate a "competent person" to evaluate the exposure potential, conduct
initial monitoring or an "exposure assessment," and supervise other required
protective actions. The evaluation may include the amount of time and
frequency adjacent workers are exposed. For example, although passing through
a contaminated area on the way to perform non-asbestos related activities is
technically work which exposes employees to asbestos, the competent person's
evaluation properly may conclude that no appreciable exposure is possible
because of the brevity of the "work" in the area.

(5) Regulated Areas

Paragraph (e) General Industry, Construction and Shipyard Employment
Standards. Regulated areas are a traditional component of OSHA health
standards. They segregate both the work and the worker so as to better
regulate the work, and to protect uninvolved employees from exposure. The
1986 standards required regulated areas for work above the PELs and in
construction, for demolition, renovation and removal activities. The final
standards require that regulated areas be established where the PELS are
likely to be exceeded, and under the construction and shipyard employment
standards, where Class I, II and III asbestos work is performed. These
requirements are substantively similar to those proposed in 1990.

The basic requirements of the regulated areas are the same for all three
standards, They are changed from the current standard to more coherently
reflect the rest of the standard's provisions. For example, paragraph (e)(2)
which requires the regulated area to be "demarcated to minimize the number of
persons within the area, and to protect persons outside the area from
exposure to airborne concentrations of asbestos" has been changed in two
ways. The phrase "in any manner," has been deleted. Since, paragraph (g)
requires critical barriers for Class I and II work, and paragraph (k)
requires warning signs outside regulated areas, demarcation must incorporate
barriers and signs where otherwise required.

OSHA has also deleted the phrase "in excess of the TWA and/or excursion
limit" in the construction and shipyard employment standards to describe the
level of protection intended to be offered persons outside the regulated
area. Since OSHA has determined that a still significant risk remains below
the PELS, intended protection should not be limited to protecting down to
these levels. OSHA noted in its 1990 proposal that in the construction
standard, "the regulated area controls are proposed to apply even when
exposures may be less than the newly proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc" (55 FR at
29716), however, no change was proposed for the "demarcation" provision.
Paragraph (e)(3) is unchanged and continues to limit access to regulated
areas to "authorized persons."

The final regulated area requirements for construction and shipyard industry
delete former and proposed (e)(6), which dictated when negative pressure
enclosures (NPEs) must be erected, and various duties required of the
"competent persons" to ensure integrity of the regulated area and enclosure.
Under OSHA's former approach, negative pressure enclosures were, in many
cases, how construction employers should have demarcated their regulated
areas. OSHA focused on the role of such enclosures in providing "bystander
protection." In these final standards, OSHA is repositioning the NPE
provisions to paragraph (g), "methods of compliance." There, these systems
are required to reduce exposures of the employees who are disturbing the
asbestos who are inside the enclosures, as well as employees outside the
enclosure.

(6) Exposure Assessment and Monitoring

Paragraph (d) General Industry. There are no changes to the exposure
monitoring provisions of the General Industry Standard.

Paragraph (f) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standard. To conform with
the newly revised approach to categorization of asbestos work, and to reflect
the difficulties of reliably estimating asbestos exposures based on limited
past or current exposure monitoring, the requirements for exposure monitoring
in the 1986 standard have been changed. First, there is a general requirement
that all employers who have a workplace covered by this standard conduct an
"initial exposure assessment" at the beginning of each asbestos job
[(paragraph (f)(2)]. Exceptions to this requirement exist only for most Class
IV work. The "assessment" must be conducted by the "competent person." The
purposes of these "assessments" are to predict whether exposure levels during
the planned asbestos work can be expected to exceed the PELs, and thus
whether additional monitoring, and other precautions are required.

"Initial assessments" are different from "initial monitoring" required in
the 1986 standards. "Initial monitoring" as used for processes in general
industry, was rationally relied on to estimate future exposures for that
purpose. Historic monitoring data were considered second-best data. The new
requirement for "initial exposure assessments" acknowledges that initial
exposure monitoring in many cases cannot adequately predict all future
exposures on construction jobs. Even if monitoring results were
instantaneously available, the value of early exposure monitoring in
predicting later exposures over a multi-day asbestos job is limited.
First-day exposures are likely to be lower than later exposures, because they
reflect early set-up rather than removal activities, conducted in relatively
clean areas before disturbance may contaminate the regulated area.

One purpose of the initial exposure assessment is to identify which asbestos
jobs are likely to exceed the PEL in time for employers to install and
implement the extra controls required to reduce such exposures. Such
additional controls may consist of ventilation which redirects the air away
from the over-exposed employees, and mandatory protective clothing and
hygiene facilities associated with donning and removing such gear. Even
employers who are planning to install full negative pressure enclosures with
air flushing technology must conduct initial exposure assessments. This will
insure that the "competent person" has reviewed the success of controls in
past projects, in order to evaluate the planned controls for the current
project. Testimony and comment to the record emphasized that the evaluation
of industrial hygienists or other properly trained personnel was essential to
decision making on how best to protect workers. For example, David Kirby of
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, agreed with the statement that before there is
any operation involving asbestos containing material, the industrial hygiene
staff makes a determination as to whether that's likely to be a high risk,
relatively high risk or a low risk operation (Tr. 197). Other participants
endorsed requiring advance assessment of asbestos-disturbing jobs (see e.g.,
ORC, Ex. 145, p. 6).

The former "initial monitoring" provisions allowed use of historic data.
OSHA now requires the evaluation of data from earlier asbestos jobs to
estimate exposures on new jobs. However, the "data" reviewed are more than
air monitoring results. This record has convinced the Agency that
consideration of factors in successfully controlling asbestos exposures needs
to be a part of the assessment. In addition to measurement results, the
assessment must review relevant controls and conditions, factors that
influence the degree of exposure. These include, but are not limited to, the
degree and quality of supervision and of employee training, techniques used
for wetting the ACM in the various circumstances encountered, placing and
repositioning the ventilation equipment, and impacts due to weather
conditions. The assessment therefore must be based on the competent person's
review of all aspects of the employer's performance doing similar jobs. Only
if similar controls are used and the work supervised by the same or similarly
trained personnel, may past data be relied on. In addition, the results of
initial monitoring required if feasible, must inform the competent person's
assessment. Judgment of the "competent person" is required when reviewing
records of past work. For example, even where an employer's earlier glove bag
removals produced some exposures above the PEL, if more recent glove bag
removals by the same crew show no exceedances, the "competent person" may be
warranted in predicting that the current job performed by the same crew will
be well controlled and exposures will not exceed the PELs.

The other basis allowed for an initial exposure assessment is "objective
data" to show that it is, in effect, impossible for a job to result in
excessive exposures. The 1986 standard, 1926.58, paragraph (f)(2)(ii),
allowed such data to demonstrate that the "product or material containing
asbestos cannot release * * * (excessive) concentrations * * *." Since the
record of this proceeding shows that almost all asbestos products may in time
become hazardous, if for example, their matrix becomes disturbed, the
activity, as well as the material, is the exposure-limiting factor. OSHA
therefore now allows a showing that a specific activity involving a product
is incapable of producing exceedances. The "objective data" must demonstrate
that under "the work conditions having the greatest potential for releasing
asbestos," an activity coupled with a specific material, simply cannot result
in excessive concentrations.

OSHA cannot predict all the combinations of activity and product which will
meet this test. OSHA believes instead that construction employers should be
given the responsibility for making these determinations for their particular
work. However, on the record of this proceeding, they would appear to be
limited to Class IV activities, or certain Class III activities such as
limited removal of intact asbestos containing gaskets using wet methods and
containment methods. OSHA notes that under no conditions can a Class I
removal qualify for this exemption; based on the record of this rulemaking,
every removal activity involving TSI and surfacing ACM is capable of
releasing fibers above the PEL.

There are separate provisions regarding a "negative initial exposure
assessment" which is a demonstration that the activity involving the asbestos
material is unlikely under all foreseeable conditions to result in
concentrations above the PELs.

The competent person must exercise judgment in performing these exposure
assessments. For example, if initial monitoring is evaluated the first day's
measurements which reflect set-up activities may not adequately predict later
exposures on a removal job. The competent person should examine both the
first day's exposures and comparable full job exposure data from other
comparable jobs, before a conclusion is reached that exposures on that job
will not exceed the PELs.

In large measure, the required bases for making a "negative exposure
assessment" in the revised construction standard are the same criteria which
would, under the 1986 standard, have allowed an employer to claim an
exemption from initial monitoring based on "historic data." The standard
makes it more difficult to base an initial exposure assessment on historic
data than did the previous provision for initial determination. Now, the
assessment must consider, the experience and training of the crews.
Therefore, the standard now requires that a negative exposure assessment must
compare crews with comparable experience and training, an employer cannot
compare untrained and inexperienced crews. And no "negative exposure
assessment" can be made if the crews which disturb asbestos in the current
job are untrained. OSHA believes that a major factor in the effectiveness of
all control systems for removing asbestos-containing materials is the
experience and training of the contractor and employees. Evidence in the
record shows dramatic reductions in exposure levels as untrained employees
learned proper glove bag techniques (see e.g., the NIOSH study, Ex. 125).

The lack of a "negative exposure determination" usually indicates that
workers are not experienced/trained or that a job is complex. In such
situations, additional protections, less dependent on experience of the
workers, or the complexity of the job, should be required. Thus, critical
barriers are required in all Class I and II work, and for Class III work,
plastic barriers are required, where negative exposure assessments are not
produced. If the employer cannot assure that levels will be minimized,
protection against migration of asbestos dust must be provided. Similarly, if
excessive levels are possible, employees in all classes must be protected by
respirator use and the standard so requires.

OSHA believes its approach balances the concern that asbestos exposure
levels vary from job to job and may be non-predictive of future levels with
the Agency's knowledge gained from long-term enforcement of the asbestos
standard, that different employers have different "track records." The
negative initial exposure assessment provisions require consideration of
factors which have been identified as influencing the variability of results.
In fact, one commenter stated that "* * * it is invalid to predict that any
particular operation is always below the PEL," identified critical
contributing variables as "the materials, work practices and experience of
the crew" (Ex. 7-52). OSHA is requiring the "negative exposure assessment" to
be based on these, among other, factors. OSHA emphasizes that a "negative
exposure assessment" does not predict exposure levels beyond a particular
job. A new assessment must be produced each time another job is undertaken.
Employers may evaluate repetitive operations with highly similar
characteristics, as one job, such as cable pulling in the same building, so
long as the historic data used also reflect repetitive operations of the same
duration and frequency.

In sum, OSHA believes data specific to the building, contractor and
employees is helpful in predicting exposures when the same variables apply.
The lack of such data should require additional precautions. Additionally,
unless there is a "negative exposure assessment," the employer must continue
to conduct periodic monitoring. Periodic monitoring, in a change from the
1986 construction standard, now is required within the regulated areas of
Class I and Class II asbestos jobs and for Class III asbestos work where the
initial assessment projects that the PEL is reasonably likely to be exceeded.
In these operations the employer is to perform daily monitoring
representative of the exposure of each workers performing these tasks. The
provisions allowing discontinuance of monitoring, additional monitoring,
observation of monitoring are unchanged.

Although not a remanded issue, several participants discussed the subject of
a clearance fiber level to determine when a regulated area could be
reoccupied following asbestos operations. Some supported use of a clearance
level with aggressive sampling and analysis in accredited laboratories (Ex.
141, 143). Most who supported a clearance level stated support for the AHERA
level of 0.01 f/cc or background fiber level (40 CFR 736.90). A
representative of the US Navy felt that measurement of the quality of
abatement -- a clearance level -- was needed, but that it should not be
considered to be a "health standard" (Ex. 7-52). In a similar vein, the
Resilient Floor Covering Institute (Ex. 147, Tr. 279) and a representative of
the American Paper Institute pointed out that a permissible exposure limit
and a clearance level are not the same and should not be confused; the former
is health-based and the latter a measure of cleanliness (Ex. 7-74). Mr.
Churchill an asbestos consultant, supported a clearance requirement and felt
that the person performing this measurement should be an independent entity
(Ex. 7-95). As mentioned earlier, the Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory
Committee recommended adoption of a clearance level of 0.04 f/ cc measured
non-aggressively (Ex. 7-77). The submission of the Monsanto Company expressed
their desire that OSHA not adopt a clearance requirement (Ex. 7-125).

OSHA has not included a provision for a specific "clearance level" in these
revised standards. In reviewing the record, there is no clear evidence of a
linkage between such a requirement and subsequent lessening of worker
exposure. Clearly, regulated areas must be cleaned following asbestos work.
However, designation of a specific fiber level which must be attained before
an area can be reoccupied does not appear to be necessary for worker health
when all other provisions of the standard are complied with. Meeting the
requirements of the standards will protect workers and bystander employees
and will prevent the migration of fibers from the work area. The docket
contains some data indicating that attainment of a clearance level (either
background or 0.01 f/cc) does not conclusively predict fiber levels which
will occur in formerly regulated areas (Ex. 1-23, 162-19). Therefore, OSHA
has not included a quantitative cutoff to determine whether a work area has
been adequately cleaned to allow re-entry, rather the standards now require
that the information regarding the final monitoring of the prior work be
provided to those reoccupying the area. However, OSHA recognizes the need for
adequate cleaning of the worksite following disturbance/removal of asbestos.

(7) Methods of Compliance

Paragraph (f) General Industry. OSHA proposed several changes to the
methods of compliance provisions.

One was to require specific work practice and engineering controls for brake
and clutch repair; another was to regulate the maintenance of
asbestos-containing flooring by prohibiting certain kinds of work practices
and requiring others; the third was to require that engineering and work
practice controls to achieve the newly reduced PEL of 0.1 f/cc be phased-in
to coincide with the imposition of the EPA ban for various industrial sectors
which manufacture asbestos containing material (see 55 FR 29721-29726). The
final general industry standard retains the conceptual outline of these
proposed changes; however the details differ.

Brake and Clutch Repair

OSHA is adding a mandatory appendix to its asbestos standard for general
industry and to the shipyard employment standard. This appendix specifies the
engineering controls and work practices to be followed during brake and
clutch work. Two methods of control are "preferred," the enclosure/HEPA
vacuum method and the low pressure/recycle method. In operations in which
such work is infrequent (i.e., establishments performing fewer than 5 brake
jobs per week), simple wet methods are included among the "preferred"
controls. Also, use of "equivalent" methods of control is permitted.

In the July 20, 1990 proposed revision of the general industry asbestos
standard, OSHA proposed that the employer comply with the standard by
implementing one of three specified methods of engineering controls and work
practices to control asbestos exposure during automotive brake and clutch
repair and assembly operations. These methods were the enclosed cylinder/HEPA
vacuum system, the spray can/ solvent system, and the wet brush-recycle
method. Detailed requirements for these three methods were set out in
proposed Appendix F. Once having properly used one of these methods, the
employer would have been exempt from other requirements of the standard. OSHA
preliminarily found that the use of these methods would routinely result in
exposure levels below the PEL. The proposal also would have allowed the
employer to comply with the standard by using an "equivalent" method, which
follows written procedures, which the employer demonstrates can achieve
results equivalent to Method A, [the enclosed cylinder/HEPA vacuum system,
Proposed 1910.1001 (f)(x)]. This proposed revision differed from the 1986
standard in two ways. The earlier standard set out two methods of reducing
exposure in a non-mandatory appendix. Secondly, the controls themselves are
somewhat different; one method, the wet brush-recycle method, was added; the
enclosed cylinder/HEPA vacuum system was revised, and the spray can/solvent
system is retained. OSHA endorsed these three methods based primarily on the
results of a NIOSH study completed after the 1986 standard which found that
all three methods effectively reduced exposure levels during brake drum
servicing operations to below the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc (Ex. 1-112).

In the final standard OSHA lists two "preferred methods," the wet-brush
recycle methods and the enclosure/HEPA vacuum system. OSHA is deleting the
solvent/spray method from the list of preferred methods. OSHA still is
listing the above two methods as "preferred," but the description of these
methods is more generic than in the proposal, so as not to preclude use of
methods which differ from those described in the proposal in minor ways which
are unlikely to affect their efficiency. In addition, specific training
provisions are added to ensure that work practices are effectively followed.

Like the proposal, "equivalent" methods are allowed so long as required
training is held. The employer must show that the "equivalent" method can
reliably achieve exposures below the PEL in the workplace conditions where
the method is sought to be used. In addition employers using such
"equivalent" methods must demonstrate by exposure data from their workplaces
using the equivalent method, or by reference to exposure data representing
conditions similar to their workplace that the anticipated exposure reduction
in fact, has been achieved. OSHA believes that these changes will allow
employers to choose among various proven approaches and encourage the
development of new devices and practices which effectively reduce exposures
in brake and clutch repair facilities.

Considerable comment and testimony were submitted to the record by the
public concerning OSHA's proposed revisions on protection for automotive
repair workers. Information concerning additional methods to achieve asbestos
control during brake repair was submitted. These additional methods include
HEPA vacuum systems without an enclosed cylinder (Ex. 7-104), using water
spray instead of solvent spray (Ex. 7-104, 7-04), enclosures shaped other
than cylindrically (Ex. 7-127), and collecting the drips of sprays from the
solvent spray method (Ex. 1-84).

Some commenters claimed that OSHA should not require any specific method of
reducing airborne asbestos exposure to brake and clutch repair workers, but
merely require that the PEL be achieved (Ex. 7-31, 7-43, 7-79, 7-104, 7-146).
Other commenters pointed out that most brake service operations are performed
by small businesses that lack resources to evaluate control devices (Ex.
1-112). Evidence submitted concerning the airborne asbestos fiber levels
produced by the use of most of the suggested methods showed exposures
consistently below the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc.

Various comments concerned the "wet brush-recycle method." A developer of an
enclosure method for brake/clutch repair asbestos control, recommended that
the term be broadened to allow "more latitude in design preference for the
manufacturer" (Ex. 162-41). He suggested that the name be changed to "low
pressure/wet cleaning" method. He also asked that OSHA use a more general
term to describe the preferred enclosure method, objecting to specification
of its shape as cylindrical. OSHA agrees that the shape of the enclosure need
not be specified and that the term suggested, "negative pressure enclosure/
HEPA vacuum system," was appropriate.

Similarly, R. Wagner of BP of America felt that it was not necessary that
the wet brush/recycle method actually include a brush and presented
monitoring results indicating effective fiber control when spraying on the
solution without brushing (Ex. 7-24). OSHA agrees that, although a brush is
useful in cleaning the components, the preferred method will be designated
low pressure/wet cleaning and will not specify the use of a brush.

A manufacturer of a low pressure/wet cleaning apparatus, objected to OSHA
requiring use of an aqueous solution in the machine (Ex. 162-1). OSHA
understands that the organic solution in the apparatus is a degreaser used as
a parts cleaner. Mr. Swartz in testimony explained that solvents are used as
degreasers, but that most brake work does not require degreasing -- he
estimated that only once per 200 to 300 brake jobs would such a solvent be
needed (Tr. 1843). OSHA has determined that it will maintain the requirement
that aqueous solutions be used in this procedure to control asbestos fiber
levels. OSHA further warns of the potential danger of solvent use in these
operations and that use of solvents, which are often flammable and may be
carcinogenic, must be undertaken with great care. OSHA also stresses the need
for low pressure application of the solution to the surfaces during this
operation to avoid asbestos fiber release and the necessity that the
asbestos-contaminated solution not be allowed to dry on surfaces.

A manufacturer of a wet brush-recycle type brake cleaner, Hilgren of Kleer
Flo, offered the following advice to users of this method regarding disposal
of waste: "Our recommended method of disposal is to simply add adsorbent
material such as "floor-dry" to the waste bag. Then direct the flow through
brush into the bag containing the absorbent material. Allow the machine to
pump the solution from the reservoir" (Ex. 7-117).

Most relevant comments supported the effectiveness of two of the three
proposed "preferred" methods: the enclosure/HEPA vacuum method and the wet
wash/recycle system. However, substantial opposition was directed at OSHA's
preference for the solvent spray system. For example, George Swartz, Director
of Safety for Midas International Corporation testified that "the utilization
of an aerosol system is ludicrous" (Tr. 1840). One, some of the solvents used
in commercial preparations are suspect carcinogens. Two, use of a spray can
does not reliably control exposures due to asbestos dust in the brake
assembly, because of the difficulties of removing the drum, and that after
removal asbestos containing dust in the assembly cannot easily be reached by
a aerosolized spray. Three, certain solvent sprays, according to Mr. Swartz,
can damage friction material and the rubber parts of the cups which force the
brake shoe out to the drum (Tr.1840-46). Another witness, James E. Clayton,
testified that "you can't take a can of compressed solution like this (Gunk
brake cleaner) and just spray it on dry dust without it getting into the
air." (id at 1914-15).

The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) agreed in its
post-hearing comment that the use of spray can with certain solvents is
potentially dangerous, and suggested that nonhazardous sprays or aerosols be
allowed (Ex. 150). Another participant described an occasion in which the
spray can was accidentally dropped, punctured, and released solvent into the
work area (Ex. 7-24). The safety director at Fruehauf Trailer Operations,
asked "why is it necessary to use a solvent as opposed to water? * * * why
couldn't it be used in place of a solvent in the performance of brake and
clutch work?" (Ex. 7-4). Mr. Swartz agreed that "simple water and detergent
can be as effective" (Ex. 1-176) However, he insisted that it be a gentle
mist of water and that resulting drips be caught and proper disposal carried
out (Tr. 1852).

OSHA agrees with these comments and witnesses. The Agency notes that some of
the solvents contained in the spray cans used to spray brake assemblies
present significant health risks. As a matter of public health policy, it is
better not to list as preferred, a compliance method which introduces another
hazardous substance into the breathing zone of the worker.

Further, the effectiveness of the solvent/spray method is compromised by the
reported need to use additional force to remove asbestos deposited in the
brake assembly, which the spray cannot reach. Additionally, comment and
testimony indicate that the force of the aerosol spray by itself can make
airborne the asbestos-containing dust. OSHA noted in the proposal, that the
spray/solvent can method produced the highest airborne concentrations of the
methods tested by NIOSH (55 FR at 29724). OSHA notes that although it based
its endorsement of the solvent/spray method on the NIOSH study, as Mr. Swartz
pointed out, "the issue of the residual dust left in a drum, I don't think,
was properly addressed in that study * * * (In) the real world, * * * the
mechanic will either dump it on the ground or he'll dump it in a garbage can.
At the end of the day he's going to sweep the floor, and he's sweeping the
dust up" (Id at 1845).

Thus, in this final standard the spray/solvent can method is no longer a
"preferred method," the use of which will exempt employers from other
provisions of the standard. Although the standard does not prohibit the use
of solvent sprays in brake and clutch repair to control asbestos exposure,
employers will have to comply with other provisions in the asbestos and other
standards when using the method. Initial monitoring must be undertaken to
assure that exposures are likely to remain under the PEL, provisions of the
hazard communication standard relating to communicating the hazard potential
of the solvent used, and training employees in avoiding exposure to such
solvent must be complied with. Employees must be specifically informed that
the solvent/spray method is not preferred, and OSHA's reasons for that
decision must be explained to them, as part of that training. Employers must
provide for the prompt cleanup of all asbestos containing liquid or debris
which is produced by any brake cleaning method, including a solvent/spray.
Thus, solvent-wetted asbestos containing material must be HEPA vacuumed when
it reaches the ground, because waiting will result in dried and airborne
dust.

Among the methods tested by NIOSH was the use of a HEPA vacuum alone,
without enclosure. The National Automobile Dealers Association
representative, D. Greenhaus, encouraged OSHA to include this in its list of
preferred methods of asbestos control in brake work stating that this was the
method already in use in many places (Ex. 7-104). The Sheehy (NIOSH) study
noted that" * * * the drums must be removed before the vacuum cleaner can be
used, thus there is a potential for asbestos release during drum removal"
(Ex. 1-112), and P. Carpenter of Nilfisk stated "[t]he greatest potential for
exposure occurs when the brake drum is first removed" (Ex. 7-140). OSHA
agrees that the potential for exposure during drum removal before the HEPA
vacuum can be used precludes listing including this as a preferred method.
Moreover, NIOSH found that HEPA systems alone do not clean the brake
components as effectively as the other methods (Ex. 1-112). Mr. Greenhaus
also recommended that OSHA prohibit three activities during brake operations:
dry brushing, air hose cleaning and use of non-HEPA vacuums. NIOSH agreed
that such prohibitions are necessary and OSHA concurs.

One related issue is whether to require respirator use for employees when
changing filters or bags from vacuums. OSHA proposed that they not be
required when changing HEPA filters, noting that filter changes occurred
infrequently, recorded fiber levels during changes were not excessive, and
other requirements triggered by respirator use, such as medical examinations
and fit testing procedures, did not appear to confer any significant benefit
to employees. One participant, Mr. Clayton, who initially disagreed with
OSHA's proposal not to require respirators for filter changes, clarified that
the ancillary requirements for a respirator program, "would scare everybody
away from wanting to do it * * * and would be a rather heavy burden for most
employers" (Tr. 1931). Mr. Clayton pointed out that exposure potential
existed not only during filter changes, but during vacuum bag changes as
well. He further pointed out that although HEPA filter changes were
infrequent, bags "could be changed as often as every three to five weeks by a
shop" (Id at 1929). Mr. Clayton described two systems of ensuring that bag
changing does not expose employees to asbestos containing dust. Under one
system the bag is collected under negative pressure; under the other the bag
is made from non-woven material and is "virtually undestructible." OSHA has
concluded that so long as filters and vacuum bags are changed using work
practices to minimize rupture and spillage, exposure from that activity will
be de minimis, and respirator use is not required to protect employees.
Accordingly, additional work practices relating to filter changes, when a
vacuum is used, are included in the standard.

OSHA is allowing another method to be used in shops in which brake work
comprises only a minor portion of the workload, and thus where employee
exposure is infrequent and minimal. For those shops in which brake work is
infrequent, OSHA has determined to allow the use of a wet method of control
as a "preferred" method. Therefore, in facilities in which no more than 5
pairs of brakes or 5 clutches, or some combination totaling 5, are repaired
each week, the mechanic/technician may control potential asbestos exposure
through the use of a pump sprayer (bottle) containing water or amended water
to wet down the drum or clutch housing before it is removed and to control
fiber release during subsequent activities. The mechanic may use other
implements to deliver the water such as a garden hose; however, the resulting
waste water generated must be caught and properly disposed of without
allowing it to dry on any surfaces. OSHA anticipates that the use of a spray
bottle will be adequate to control the dust without generating a large volume
of waste water, however any waste water generated must be disposed of
properly. OSHA applied a qualitative analysis using its risk management
expertise in making the decision that allows less effective controls for
facilities that do 5 or fewer brake and 5 or fewer clutch repair jobs per
week. Relevant factors were the magnitude of the risk of asbestos caused
disease estimated in the 1986 risk assessment at levels of exposure in
vehicle repair facilities, the duration of exposure, and the practicality of
using controls in the industry.

In describing the usual work practices of mechanics performing brake jobs,
Mr. Swartz of Midas Corporation reported that it was occasionally necessary
for the mechanic/technician to dislodge a "frozen" brake drum; this was
usually performed by striking it with a hammer (Ex. 1-176). When performed
within an enclosure under negative pressure, this operation would be unlikely
to expose the worker to asbestos fibers; however, when using the other
methods it is essential that the exterior of the drum, especially around the
seams, be thoroughly wetted to minimize fiber release. OSHA concurs and thus
will require that before attempts are made to dislodge a "frozen" brake drum,
the drum must be thoroughly wetted.

Other comments were received which dealt with minor alterations in wording
which would render the requirements clearer and more specific and some of
these have been incorporated into the language of Appendix F (Appendix L in
the shipyard employment standard). Several participants noted that additional
activities, such as inspection and disassembly of brakes could also result in
exposure and should be included. Mr. Swartz explained that brakes are
frequently checked to determine whether they are defective and this involves
removal of the drums and results in potential exposure to asbestos-containing
dust (Tr. 1843). OSHA agrees that these activities should be covered by the
rule and has included them in the language of the final rule. Therefore the
following activities will be listed and will require implementation of the
provisions of the mandatory appendix F (appendix L in the shipyard employment
standard): clutch and brake inspection, disassembly, repair and assembly.

Mr. Swartz also testified that brake shoes are recycled and new friction
material is placed on re-used metal frames (Tr. 1871). A letter forwarded to
OSHA by EPA Brian Putnam, whose work experience included 4 years of
delivering auto parts to garages and service stations, stated:

* * * it is my observation that auto parts employees face significant
exposure to asbestos from brake shoe cores, brake drums, and clutches. Not
only do they store cores for exchange with the manufacturers, most also turn
brake drums which come in with a * * * coating of dust on them (Ex. 1-133).

The asbestos standard 1910.1001(k)(1) states that "all surfaces shall be
maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of dusts and waste
containing asbestos," and subsequently in (k)(6) specifically states that
items consigned for disposal which are contaminated shall be sealed in
impermeable bags or other closed impermeable containers. In order to include
materials which are contaminated and scheduled for recycling, not disposal,
the phrase "or recycling" is added to this provision (k)(6), which now is as
follows: Waste, scrap, debris, bags, containers, equipment and clothing
contaminating with asbestos consigned for disposal or recycling, shall be
collected and disposed of in sealed impermeable bags, or other closed,
impermeable containers.

Engineering controls and good work practices should be implemented at all
times during brake servicing. Because of the health hazards associated with
asbestos exposure, these actions must be considered even when the worker
believes that the brake shoes do not contain asbestos.

OSHA received several comments pointing out a need for training requirements
for brake and clutch mechanics. For example J. Clayton of Clayton Associates,
Inc supported a training requirement for brake and clutch repair workers
citing as examples that New Jersey required one day training for mechanics
and that Maryland requires training for those covered under its asbestos
program. He estimated the cost of training at $150 and noted that certified
instructors were required in both these states (Ex. 7-127). OSHA agrees that
workers exposed to asbestos must be trained in appropriate ways to avoid
exposure to airborne asbestos fibers. Therefore, OSHA has provided a
mandatory appendix outlining the work practices to be used in performing
these operations, and has included a requirement that brake and clutch repair
workers receive training in the appropriate use of these work practices.

Floor Maintenance

Paragraph (k)(7) General Industry Standard. The 1986 standard contained no
provisions specifically covering work practices on asbestos containing
flooring materials. In 1990, OSHA proposed in paragraph (f)(xi) several
limitations on buffing and sanding asbestos containing flooring. In the
housekeeping section of the final OSHA is prohibiting or limiting three work
practices relating to floor maintenance for asbestos-containing flooring
materials and those assumed to contain asbestos. They are: (i) sanding of
asbestos-containing floor material is prohibited; (ii) stripping of finishes
shall be conducted using low abrasion pads at speed lower than 300 rpm and
wet methods; and, (iii) burnishing or dry buffing may be performed only on
asbestos-containing flooring which has sufficient finish so that the pad
cannot contact the asbestos-containing material.

OSHA had proposed to allow asbestos containing floor tile to be buffed only
with "low abrasion pads at speeds of 190 rpm or less" (See 55 FR at 22752).
However, after a review of the record OSHA believes that restricting sanding
of floor materials, limiting the speed and abrasiveness of the pads and
specifying use of wet methods for stripping floors, and allowing buffing only
on finished floors will protect floor care workers from exposure to airborne
asbestos fibers while performing the maintenance and will minimize future
exposures due to deteriorating flooring caused by inadequate maintenance.

Paragraph (g) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards:

The "methods of compliance" provisions are the core of the revised
standards. They set generic, operation-specific and exposure triggered
requirements for conducting asbestos work. In the 1986 construction standard,
provisions dictating engineering controls and work practices for most
construction jobs were contained in paragraph (e), governing the "regulated
area." OSHA believes that paragraph (g), the methods of compliance section,
is a more logical home for these provisions.

Most of the requirements in paragraph (g) are instructions to use specified
work practices. The work practice approach to controlling asbestos exposure
in construction activities is widely endorsed. It is the model for NESHAP
regulation under EPA (see 40 CFR 60.143), most state regulations and
voluntary consensus guidelines. OSHA has tried to formulate work practice
requirements as simple, flexible instructions, embodying the basic control
strategies for asbestos dust suppression. These are to wet it down, contain
the disturbance, and isolate the operation. The work practice-engineering
controls which are listed and described in the regulation are the ones which
the rulemaking record confirms are used, understood, and effective.

OSHA expects that modifications and innovations in asbestos control
technology will be developed. The standards provide for this by setting up
general criteria for alternative controls, and an easily met procedure to
allow the use of effective alternatives. Paragraph (g)(6) governs
alternatives for Class I control methods, and paragraph (g)(7)(vi) for Class
II methods. For both classes, detailed written demonstrations of the
effectiveness of the alternative/modification are required and evaluations by
designated persons are required. Alternatives for Class I work require a more
rigorous demonstration of effectiveness, and advance notice to OSHA of their
use. OSHA intends these requirements to be capable of being met by
well-designed and tested alternative control methods. They are meant to
exclude short-cut methods which hope to evade the other provisions in the
standard. By their inclusion, OSHA is stating its policy view that industry
has demonstrated its responsible innovative capability in the past, and will
continue to do so.

The first provision in the construction methods of compliance paragraph,
(g)(1)(i), requires that three basic and simple controls be utilized in all
operations covered by the construction standard, regardless of exposure
levels in those operations. These provisions apply to, for example, employers
who install asbestos-containing material (no Class designation), clean up
asbestos-containing debris at a construction site (Class IV), repair a boiler
covered with asbestos-containing TSI (Class I or III), and remove
asbestos-containing surfacing material (Class I).

The controls required are: use of HEPA filtered vacuums to collect debris
and visible dust; use of wet methods to control asbestos fiber dispersion;
and prompt disposal of asbestos contaminated waste materials.

OSHA has imposed these controls to reduce airborne contamination by asbestos
fibers disturbed during construction activities. However fibers are released,
contamination can be reduced by suppressing asbestos containing dusts, and/or
collecting them before they dry and are able to migrate.

OSHA believes that most employers will be able to use wet methods, in
handling asbestos-containing materials to reduce the airborne migration of
fibers. The use of wet methods to control airborne asbestos was not
explicitly required in the 1986 construction standard. It was mentioned among
the control measures which could be used to keep down fiber levels during
"maintenance and renovation projects in environments that do not lend
themselves to the construction of negative-pressure enclosures" (51 FR
22711). In the Method of Compliance section, OSHA presented use of wet
methods among a list of engineering and work practice controls from which an
employer could choose when seeking to comply with the PEL. The 1972 asbestos
standard had required the use of wet methods to the extent practicable to
reduce the release of asbestos fibers unless the usefulness of the product
would be diminished by the use of such methods. On reconsideration, OSHA now
finds the use of wet methods to be an inexpensive, generally feasible, and
highly effective way to control release of asbestos fibers and returns to the
earlier requirement for its use in all feasible situations.

There is overwhelming record support for the use of wet methods (e.g., Exs.
7-1, 7-34, 7-37, 7-51, 7-52, 7-74, 7-86, 7-89, 7-99, 7-132, 119P, 143, Tr.
223, 722 and 756). Representatives of most sectors, expressed support for a
requirement for wet methods.(e.g., transite panel removal, Ex.7-74; removal
of asbestos packing, Ex. 7-99; floor tile maintenance, Ex 7-132; custodial or
maintenance work, Ex. 162-4, 162-25; floor tile and sheet removal, Ex 7-132;
sheet gasket removal, Ex 119; cutting of transite pipe, Ex.117, Tab 6 at 5,
Tab 7 at 1). B. Kynock of the AIR Coalition endorsed the use of wet methods,
stating: "wetting of material is still considered a state of the art
engineering control -- using wet methods -- because it is the one definitive
way we can keep fiber levels to a minimum" (Tr. 3574). Evidence submitted
into the record concerning a variety of asbestos jobs showed significant
decreases in exposure levels when wet methods were used, compared to when the
work was done dry [see e.g., re: sheet gasket removal (Ex.119-P)]. In the
study by Paik et al, 1982 (Ex. 84-204) sprayed-on asbestos containing
material was removed from eleven buildings, in one dry methods were employed
due to electrical considerations while wet methods were employed in the other
buildings. The dry method resulted in a geometric mean fiber level of 16.4
f/cc, while during the use of wet methods the geometric mean was 0.5 f/cc.
OSHA notes that the OSHA PEL at the time the samples were taken was 2.0 f/cc.

Exxon (EUSA) submitted extensive sampling data indicating low fiber counts
during outdoor removals in which wet methods were used (Ex. 38). Exxon also
submitted sampling data from the outdoor removal of pipeline wrap from
underground lines in which wetting was the primary means of control and in
which 30 personal samples had an average fiber level less than 0.03 f/cc (Ex.
127). It is noted that Exxon also submitted specific additional work
practices used in conjunction with wet methods to control fiber levels.

Requiring wet methods is consistent with EPA's regulatory scheme. Wet
methods are required by EPA for removal and demolition jobs falling within
the jurisdictional limits of NESHAP, and are recommended by that Agency as
part of a basic "O&M" program for building custodians and maintenance
workers. (EPA, Managing Asbestos In Place, Ex. 1-183, p. 18-19).

EPA/NESHAP, which requires facility owners and/or operators to control
asbestos fiber emissions by wetting prior, to during, and after
demolition/removal, has provided guidance in a pamphlet entitled
"Asbestos/NESHAP Adequately Wet Guidance" (EPA 340/1-90-019, December 1990,
Ex. 1-300). In this booklet two exceptions to wetting are described: when
temperature at the point of wetting if below freezing, and, when use of water
would unavoidably damage equipment or present a safety hazard. In the latter
case, local exhaust ventilation and collection systems to capture fibers must
be used.

Others voiced reservation regarding a universal requirement for use of wet
methods. E. Downey of US West, Inc. felt that in the case of
telecommunications industry and computer systems, use of wet methods would
not be practical, particularly in roofing operations (Ex. 7-79). J. Collins
of the US Navy Office of Operations and others recommended ground fault
circuit use for avoiding the electrical hazards presented by use of wet
methods (Ex. 7-52).

OSHA will allow employers to claim infeasibility if they cannot use wet
methods due to conditions such as electrical hazards, hot surfaces, and the
presence of technical equipment which cannot tolerate moisture.

The use of wet methods for roofing was a major issue in this proceeding.
Steven Phillips, counsel to the National Roofing Contractors Association
testified:

We have submitted for the record a report performed by SRI * * * their
recommendation was that there is no improvement on asbestos emissions and
there are safety hazards involved in putting workers on roofs when wet
methods are utilized * * * (Tr. 2456).

The National Roofing Contractor's Association (NRCA) cited four reasons not
to require wetting on roofs: "the introduction of water on the roof creates
safety hazards, such as slipping; water on the roof can enter the building
and cause damage and electrical hazards; the introduction of water on the
roof can damage the roof system (e.g., by soaking insulation boards); the SRI
International study reveals that roofing work involving wetting does not
appear to produce either higher or lower concentrations than work performed
dry. We believe this is because of the nature of roof systems. They are
applied and in place to repel water. Thus, water (amended or unamended) does
not penetrate the material -- it just rolls off of it" (Ex. 7-112, p. 21).

Some participants suggested that using wet methods on roofs should be
recommended, but not required, because of safety concerns. For instance, the
asbestos administrator for Florida, noted that using wet methods on a sloped
roof may be more of a hazard to the workers, than the benefits gained (Ex.
7-6).

In contrast, NIOSH recommended that before an operation (tear-off of
asbestos-containing roofing material), the roof should be wetted with water
or other wetting agent (Ex. 44). BCTD noted in its post-hearing brief that
"the majority of the jobs reported in the SRI Study, submitted by NRCA,
employed wet methods" (Ex. 143, citing Ex. 9-31A). Various submissions noted
that power cutting of built-up roofing is the standard method used to remove
roofing material. Use of this method generates dust which may contain
asbestos (Ex. 1-357, 7-95, 7-96, 7-115). The Paik study and other evidence
demonstrate that wetting does substantially reduce exposure. OSHA believes
that continuous misting of the cutting blade during the cutting operation,
whether performed by hand or by machine will help to control dust. Field
observations of such procedures have shown that little water is pooled as a
result of the misting process (Ex. 1-313), and that in most circumstances,
evaporation will quickly occur. Therefore, OSHA does not believe that the
requirement to mist the cutting blade will create a slipping hazard on roofs
under most circumstances. If, however, a competent person determines that the
specific conditions of a roofing job (e.g. a steeply sloping roof, or below
freezing temperatures) combined with the water resulting from any misting,
would create a slipping hazard, misting may be omitted, if other precautions
are followed, such as equipping the power tool with a HEPA vacuum system, or
using hand methods.

The National Roofing Contractors Association said that currently there is no
HEPA vacuum attached roofing cutter (Ex. 146). However, a wide variety of
power tools have been fitted with local exhaust systems that work very well,
including those used on tools for asbestos work. The 1972 asbestos standard
required the use of local exhaust ventilation on all hand-operated or powered
tools which may produce or release asbestos fibers in excess of the
permissible exposure limit (37 FR 11320). The 1986 standard affirmed the
requirement for ventilation for tools (51 FR 22715). We again reaffirm it
here. To the extent feasible, tools used for working with ACM must be
equipped with local exhaust ventilation. Some development work may be needed,
but HEPA vacuum systems have been designed for many similar uses.

Other Basic Controls

The other basic controls in (g)(1), required for all operations under the
standard are intended to reduce exposure caused by resuspension of asbestos
fibers which have settled. The first is the requirement in (g)(1)(i) to use
vacuum cleaners equipped with HEPA filters or other methods to collect debris
and visible dust containing ACM or PACM before the material dries, which
prevents the resuspension of fibers. This requirement complements the
prohibition in (g)(2)(iii), which prohibits dry clean-up, including sweeping
and shoveling, of dust and debris containing ACM or PACM. Although "wet"
sweeping is not prohibited, it is not preferred, and may not be used to
"collect" visible dust and debris. Nor may dry ACM or PACM-containing dust or
debris be collected by means other than vacuuming with a HEPA filtered
vacuum.

There was substantial record support for these requirements. As noted above
these procedures apply to all asbestos operations. In removal operations, the
requirement to use wet methods in the removal [(g)(1)(ii)] will help assure
that resulting debris and dust can be collected before they dry out or are
vacuumed up using vacuums equipped with HEPA filters (g)(1)(i). Even if
operations are conducted within negative pressure enclosures, debris and dust
should not remain uncollected for the entire work shift, because the
resuspension of asbestos fibers from these sources creates additional new
exposures for employees. If the work is performed within glove bags, leaks in
the bags may create dust and debris. Fallen debris can be spread to parts of
the building and thereby create widespread contamination. If the collection
bags or devices required by other provisions fail or fall short, prompt
collection of the dust and debris will limit the exposure to workers from
such failure. If the negative pressure within the enclosure lapses, prompt
collection of dust and debris will protect employees outside the enclosure
from resuspended fibers. For these reasons, OSHA believes that careful
treatment of asbestos waste and visible dust must be followed in all
construction and shipyard industry operations which expose employees to
asbestos.

OSHA notes that for demolition and renovation work which is covered under
NESHAP (40 CFR 61 Subpart M), all ACM must be kept wet until sealed in a
leak-tight container which includes an appropriate label. OSHA is extending
this requirement to all jobs under the standard, and now requires that all
asbestos-contaminated waste be promptly disposed of in leak tight containers
[(g)(1)(iii)].

Requirements for Operations Which May Exceed the PELs

Paragraph (g)(2) applies to situations where it is expected that exposures
may exceed the PEL, and thus additional controls are required to keep
exposures at or below the PEL. Paragraph (g)(2) requires that local exhaust
ventilation equipped with HEPA filter dust collection systems be installed
for fixed processes involving asbestos handling and for power tools used in
installing, or otherwise handling asbestos containing materials. In addition,
enclosure or isolation of the asbestos releasing process must take place.
These controls were listed as optional in the 1986 standard. They are now
required, because of their proven ability to reduce dust levels in virtually
all occupational environments. These controls, in particular, apply to
construction activities involving the installation of new asbestos-containing
construction materials, and in some cases the removal of previously installed
material.

R.J. Pigg, President of the Asbestos Information Assn. of North America,
testified that "the tools that we use, (for cutting asbestos-cement pipe as
recommended work practices) are those that can be fitted with vacuum
attachments. We have studies that relate to those recommended work practices
that * * * support, when they're being followed, that you're well below the
PEL" (Tr. 558-9).

In addition, paragraph (g)(2) requires that where the exposures are expected
to be above the PEL, ventilation to move contaminated air away from exposed
employees in the regulated areas toward a HEPA filtration or collection
device is required. This requirement is adapted from the current standard
which lists "general ventilation systems" as one of the control methods to be
used to achieve the PEL. However, OSHA believes that the term "air sweeping
away from exposed employees toward a HEPA filtered exhaust device" is more
appropriate and effective. Further, it removes the interpretative possibility
that using a general building ventilation system to vent
asbestos-contaminated air, would be acceptable under the standard. A similar
requirement is also aimed at Class I jobs which cannot produce a negative
initial exposure assessment [see (g)(4)(F)].

Prohibitions

Paragraph (g)(3) sets out four prohibitions for all work under the standard.
One prohibition, relating to high-speed abrasive disc saws, is made more
specific; one, prohibiting dry sweeping and dry clean-up of ACM and PACM is
added; and, one prohibiting employee rotation is expanded to apply to all
attempts to reduce exposure, not, as in the 1986 standard, to reach the PEL.
OSHA finds these changes will help reduce employee exposures and are
consistent with the revisions to the standards.

Controls for Asbestos Jobs According to Their Classification

The next set of requirements in the "Methods of Compliance" beginning at
paragraph-(g)(4), are keyed to the four classes of construction activities,
Class I through IV, relating to previously installed ACM and PACM, defined in
paragraph (b). The scheme is risk-based with Class I as the most hazardous,
and Class IV the least so.

Class I asbestos work consists of the "removal" of asbestos-containing TSI
and surfacing material and of PACM, including demolition operations involving
these materials. Class II work consists of the "removal" of all other
asbestos-containing materials, including resilient flooring presumed to
contain asbestos. Class III work consists of the "disturbance" of all
previously installed asbestos-containing building materials and PACM. Class
IV work consists of housekeeping and custodial work in contact with
previously installed ACM and PACM, and the clean-up of debris on construction
sites.

All asbestos work under the construction and shipbuilding standards is not
in the "class system." The installation of new asbestos-containing products
does not carry a class designation, and thus the class-specific requirements
do not apply to that activity. Work covered by the general industry standard
is not included in the "class system" as well.

OSHA also notes that the differences in controls required among classes is
not great. Further, the Agency believes that the risk overlap between
adjoining classes is neither frequent nor large, and that the standard allows
the employer flexibility in most such cases. The regulation requires
job-by-job evaluation of regulated projects, and gives the competent person
some leeway in easing some requirements when it appears that the project can
be done especially safely.

The following examples illustrate how operations involving potential
asbestos disturbance are to be classified. If an insulated pipe is leaking,
and less than one standard glove bag's worth of TSI is "disturbed" (see
definition in paragraph B) in order to repair the leak, it is a Category III
job. If the TSI is stripped from a section of piping to inspect all the
piping in an area for leaks, it is a Class I job. If the section of piping
required to be stripped is less than 25 feet, it is still a Class I job, but
critical barriers may not be required if the initial exposure assessment is
"negative" [see (g)(4)(i)(B)]. If it is not clear which category the work
belongs, the employer should assume the higher, more restrictive, category
applies, and should comply with the listed work practices and controls for
that category. OSHA believes that most asbestos work will fit easily into the
categories which are defined.

OSHA found that the term "small-scale, short-duration," insufficient to
distinguish lower risk asbestos operations which allow exemptions from
generally required controls.

A historical perspective is useful to clarify this issue. In 1986, OSHA
required that all removal, renovation, and demolition operations, except for
"small-scale, short duration" operations, be conducted within negative
pressure enclosures [29 CFR 1926.58(e)(6)(1986)]. The scope of both the
requirement and the exemption was unclear. The requirement did not explicitly
apply to "maintenance or repair" operations, though most of the examples
given were in that category. The examples cited in the exemption included
pipe repair, valve replacement, installing electrical conduits, installing or
removing drywall, roofing, and other general building maintenance operations.
In addition, OSHA maintained that it was not possible to specify with
precision the exact size of a "small-scale" maintenance job or to pinpoint
the time involved in a "short-duration" task.

The Court of Appeals stated that OSHA had not drawn the parameters of the
exemption with enough specificity and that "the exception as now worded seems
to erase the rule." As noted above the Court remanded the issue to OSHA to
"clarify the exemption for "small scale, short duration operations" from the
negative-pressure enclosure requirements. Further the Court suggested that
OSHA limit the exemption to "work operations where it is impractical to
construct an enclosure because of the configuration of the work environment,"
stated by OSHA in the preamble to the 1986 rule, as the intended scope of the
exemption (51 FR at 22,711,2).

However, the consequences of qualifying for the exemption were less clear
when the regulatory text was consulted. Section (e)(6) of the 1986 standard
allowed "small-scale, short-duration operations" to be exempt from the
negative pressure enclosure requirement for removal, demolition, and
renovations operations. However, some contractors successfully argued in
enforcement actions, that a NPE was a particularized kind of a "regulated
area" which the overriding general provision required only in "work areas
where airborne concentrations of asbestos exceed or can reasonably be
expected to exceed the TWA and/or excursion limit" (Section (e)(1)). To
impart certainty to the requirement OSHA issued a compliance directive which
triggered the requirement at the PEL, and attempted to clarify the kind of
operations which would qualify for the exemption, in a job where exceedances
of the PEL were expected.

In its July 20, 1990 proposal, OSHA would have required NPEs based on the
type of work to be done; and sought to clarify the definition of small-scale,
short duration operations by proposing specific cutoffs for "small" and
"short." In addition, general criteria were proposed which were intended to
amplify the exemptive criteria: operations must be "non-repetitive, affect
small surfaces or volumes of material containing asbestos * * * not expected
to expose bystanders to significant amounts of asbestos * * * completed
within one work day." Cutoffs for specific operations were: repair or removal
of asbestos on pipes: 21 linear feet; repair or removal of asbestos panel; 9
square feet: pipe valves containing asbestos gaskets or electrical work that
disturbs asbestos: one worker, four hours, removal of drywall: one workday,
endcapping of pipes and tile removal: four hours, and installation of
conduits: eight-hour work shift.

Many participants agreed that using only the duration, and size of a job did
not adequately characterize risk. Some argued that all asbestos jobs were
risky, indeed there should be little regulatory distinction made. For
example, NIOSH spokesperson, Richard Lemen, expressed the view that "even
with short duration, small-term jobs we still feel that there is a risk to
the worker, not only from the one time exposures, but from the potential of
that worker doing multiple jobs over periods of time * * * which increase the
exposure each time and the lung burden of asbestos to each of those exposures
* * * we still feel that * * * [these jobs] should be treated as protectively
as the other type of jobs." (Tr. 244), [See to the same effect the testimony
of Mr. Cook, an abatement contractor who testified for the BCTD and Lynn
McDonald, representing the Sheet-Metal Workers Union, (Tr. 829ff)].

The proposed definition of small-scale, short duration operations included
specification of the number of square and linear feet of asbestos-containing
material. There were numerous objections raised to the proposed values.

Several participants suggested that the NESHAP cutoff of 260 square or 160
linear feet, used by EPA for notification, be used as the cutoff for
small-scale work (Ex. 7-9, 7-21, 7-39, 7-52, 7-113, 103, 1-53, 1-55). Others
such as Edward Palagyi, a Florida State Asbestos Coordinator, felt that this
cutoff was too high for OSHA to use in its definition (Ex. 7-6).

Several alternate amounts of material were suggested. Christopher Corrado of
the Long Island Lighting Company (Ex. 7-29), James Foley of the New York
Power Authority (Ex. 7-31) and Robert Brothers of Eastman Kodak (Ex. 7-81)
recommended that OSHA adopt the amounts used by New York in its small-scale
definition -- 25 linear and 10 square feet. William Dundulis of the Rhode
Island Department of Health felt that to avoid confusion, OSHA should adopt
the same cutoff that EPA used in its Worker Protection Rule -- 3 linear and 3
square feet (7-124). Others suggested that the amount of material be defined
by the amount of asbestos-containing waste generated by the activity. For
example, Preston Quirk of Gobbell Hays suggested cutoff maximum of 55 gallon
drum or 1 cubic yard of ACM waste material (Ex. 7-34), while OSHA witness
David Kirby suggested 3 glove bags worth of waste material or 10 linear feet
as the cutoff of a small-scale job (Ex. 7-111). BCTD suggested "the lesser of
(a) a yield of no more than 1-1/3 cubic feet (10 gallons) of
asbestos-containing waste material, or (b) a maximum length of 2 feet or a
maximum area of no more than 8 square feet of material containing asbestos."
Noting that the amount of material covering a pipe varies with its diameter,
(and the thickness of the material) BCTD calculated that removal of 1 inch of
insulation from common pipe dimensions can vary from 1.37 to 5.04 cubic feet
of waste. (Ex 143 at 131).

Although OSHA believes that the amount of waste material generated by a job
may be a valid index of its exposure potential, the Agency agrees with
participants who pointed out the difficulties of estimating the amount of
waste material in advance of the job. [e.g., testimony of Chip D'Angelo, an
asbestos consultant, (Tr. 3086), Paul Fiduccia, representing a number of real
estate and building owner interests, (Tr. 791); Paul Heffernan of Kaselaan
and D'Angelo Associates, (Ex. 7-36)].

Charles Kelly of Edison Electric Institute asked whether complete removal of
a pipe which might exceed 21 feet in length, but which involved removal of
less than 2 feet of insulation at either end to enable cutting the pipe
length for removal would be considered a small-scale job (Ex. 156).

Many additional commentators and hearing participants discussed these issues
during this rulemaking proceeding. Some commented that the duration cutoffs
were not realistic or protective. Other participants asked for clarification
on whether duration of the job included preparation and cleanup. Also,
Captain John Collins of the US Navy felt that employers would abuse the
exemption by assigning many employees to a job in order to complete it in a
short time period (Ex. 7-52), and suggested that instead of specifying the
number of persons and the number of hours, OSHA should set the limit in terms
of man-hours [see also Churchill at Tr. 3468, ORC at Tr. 3181, Kynock of AIR
Coalition (Tr. 3539)].

Daniel Bart of GTE Service Corporation expressed concern that by having a
time limitation for small-scale, short duration operations in the definition,
the installation of telephone cables in buildings might no longer be
considered short duration (Ex. 7-87). Dr. Michael Crane of Consolidated
Edison, New York objected to the requirement that an operation be
non-repetitive in order to qualify as small-scale, short duration (Ex. 7-76).
He said, "(t)here are jobs * * * not part of an overall asbestos removal but
are performed many times in the course of day during routine maintenance that
must be done in generation stations and other utility facilities" [see also
the suggestion of Paul Heffernan of Kaselaan&D'Angelo to adopt the concept
of "functional space" as designated under AHERA, and defining a
non-repetitive operation as occurring once within such a functional space
(Ex. 7-36)]. Some also asked if OSHA intended preparation time and clean-up
time be included in the duration limits for SSSD (Ex. 7-108).

Several participants noted that most asbestos work would not be assigned to
a single worker, and SSSD should include only jobs completed by 2 employees
in one work shift (Ex. 7-31): Preston Quirk of Gobbell Hays Partners, Inc.
suggested that a maximum of 3 workers be allowed (Ex. 7-34). Organization
Resources Counselors, Inc. (ORC) maintained that the specification of the
number of workers was not necessary, as long as the employer had a
comprehensive safety and health plan. (Ex. 7-99).

The views on these defining variables has influenced the Agency's decision
to broaden and realign its job classification system based on relative risk.
Based on this record and the agency's experience in enforcing the 1986
standard's provisions on small-scale, short duration work, OSHA is dropping
the term "small-scale, short term" work from the regulatory text. The agency
finds that the term "small-scale, short term" is too limiting, has been shown
to be confusing, and cannot be defined with sufficient precision to serve the
purpose of distinguishing high risk asbestos-disturbing activity from
activity of reduced risk.

The term is limiting because it focuses on a fraction of the circumstances
and criteria which define lower risk work with asbestos- containing material.
OSHA has found that thermal system insulation (TSI) and surfacing material
are the asbestos-containing building materials likely to produce significant
employee exposure. On the other hand, removing asbestos-containing products
like transite panels, likely will not result in significant exposure, even if
conducted for more than one day, under minimum controls. As much as the scope
and duration of the job, the materials themselves, their condition and the
work-practices used define hazard potential.

OSHA's organization of asbestos jobs into categories is based on the more
objective criteria, such as the type of material to be disturbed and the type
of activity. Factors which are more subjective, such as condition, and crew
experience are part of the required pre-job assessment by a "competent
person." Not concentrating on the amount of asbestos material or the time the
job takes, avoids serious objections raised by rulemaking participants to the
time- or volume-based definition in the proposal. For example, a frequent
complaint was that the duration of the operation should not be specified in
the definition of small-scale activities because this might create incentives
to perform the work more hurriedly and in a more hazardous manner when the
worker must meet defined time schedules (Ex. 7-18, 7-35, 7-37, 7-43, 7-50,
7-52, 7-54, 7-63, 7-74, 7-76, 7-81, 7-87, 7-89, 7-95, 7-99, 7-106, 7-112,
7-124, 7-128, 7-135, 7-139, 7-146, 7-151, 143, Tr. 417). (In a few regulatory
provisions, however, OSHA still relies on the amount of material to be
removed to indicate risk, and thus, the protections required. These are the
exemption from critical barriers from low-exposure Class I jobs [see
paragraph (g)(4) and in defining "disturbance"]).

This classification system is OSHA's response to the Court's remand issue of
how to clarify the term "small-scale, short duration." (see also preceding
discussion of classes of asbestos work under "Definitions.")

Class I Work

Class I work, i.e., the "removal" of TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM, must be
performed using procedures in paragraph (g)(4) and using a control method
which is listed in paragraph (g)(5) of the standard. If another control
method is used, or if a listed control method is "modified," the standard in
paragraph (g)(6) requires that a certified industrial hygienist (CIH), or
licensed professional engineer who is a "project designer," certify the
control method using the criteria set out in the regulatory text. The
requirements of (g)(4) are: for Class I jobs, preparation must be supervised
by a competent person, dropcloths must be used and HVAC systems must be
isolated. The area must be set up using "critical barriers' either as part of
a negative pressure enclosure system, or as a supplemental barrier to another
listed system which isolates the asbestos disturbance in a different way.
Other barriers or isolation methods may be used to prevent asbestos
migration. The effectiveness of such methods must be proven by visual
inspection and clearance or perimeter monitoring (see e.g., Ex. 9-34 cc). As
noted below, OSHA believes that the size of the removal job alone does not
predict the risk to workers. However, if a job is smaller, the chances are
reduced that isolation barriers provided by glove bags or boxes will fail.

OSHA was reluctant to limit glove bag removals without critical barriers
only to maintenance projects, where as NIOSH noted, it is more likely that
crews will be untrained (Ex. 125). Rather, OSHA has followed the lead of some
states, which allow removals involving less than 25 linear feet of TSI, and
10 square feet of other material to be handled without critical barriers,
unless the glove bags or enclosure loses its integrity (see e.g., 12 NYCRR
56) or where a negative exposure assessment has not been produced. Such
projects are class I removals, and workers required to perform them must be
trained in an EPA-accredited training course or equivalent; OSHA believes
that the work force performing these relatively minor removals is the same
work force performing major removals, thus the jobs will be well-conducted
and critical barriers will be unnecessary.

In addition, where the employer cannot demonstrate that a Class I job is
likely not to overexpose employees, the employer must ventilate the regulated
area to move contaminated air away from employee breathing zones.

Paragraph (g)(5) sets out five listed control methods which OSHA has
evaluated during this rulemaking. The Agency finds that using these methods
pursuant to the limitations and specifications in the paragraph is likely to
effectively control employee exposures when performing Class I work. The
first control system listed for Class I work is the Negative Pressure
Enclosure System (or NPE). The extent to which OSHA should require these
systems for major asbestos work was a remanded issue. As discussed in detail
below, OSHA has found that NPEs, when constructed and used according to the
criteria in this standard, can be effective in protecting employees within
and outside the enclosure.

Other listed systems also may be used for Class I work under stated
limitations. Paragraph (g)(5) sets out these limitations. These systems are:
glove bag systems, negative-pressure glove bag systems, negative pressure
glove box systems, the water spray process system, and a mini- enclosure
system. OSHA emphasizes the use of the term "system." Each method consists of
tangible materials and devices; and of procedures and practices. All the
listed elements must be complied with before OSHA's finding of effectiveness
are relevant. Other, unspecified control methods, "alternative control
methods," may be used if additional notification is given OSHA, and if a
specially trained "project designer" or a certified industrial hygienist
certifies that the controls will be protective.

Participants in this rulemaking requested that OSHA's revisions allow
alternative systems. OSHA agrees that asbestos removal technology is
evolving. If another control method is used, or if a listed control method is
"modified," the standard requires that a certified industrial hygienist or
licensed professional engineer who is also qualified as a project designer
certify the control method using the criteria set out in the regulatory text.
Additional discussion of these issues is found later in this document.

Specific Issues Relating to Methods of Compliance

1. A major issue in this proceeding is when NPEs should be required. In the
1990 proposal OSHA would have required the erection of negative pressure
enclosures for all asbestos removal jobs, except for "small scale short
duration work." This proposal responded to the Court's order for OSHA to
clarify the conditions under which negative pressure enclosures were required
in the 1986 standard (see discussion on Issue #3).

The major rationale in the 1986 standard for requiring negative pressure
enclosures was to ensure that contamination from large-scale asbestos
projects did not spread beyond the work area. OSHA there stated that "general
contamination of the workplace has resulted from failure to confine asbestos
using strict regulated area procedures, and asbestos-related diseases have
been found in workers of a different trade exposed to asbestos contamination
from the activities of asbestos workers." (55 FR at 29716). The effectiveness
of NPEs in protecting employees working within the enclosure was not the
explicit basis for their adoption in the 1986 rule.

In the 1990 proposal, OSHA primarily based the requirement for universal
NPEs for major asbestos work on limited data relating to contamination of
workspaces adjacent to asbestos work, and reports of historic disease
experienced by employers in trades other than asbestos work who worked
alongside asbestos workers. OSHA stated however, that the Agency "has not
been able to estimate the risk to bystander employees * * *" and asked for
comment and data on their exposure (55 FR 29716). OSHA also asked for
information about alternatives to work in full containment, such as glove bag
and box systems and "new technologies" (55 FR 29717). Although OSHA proposed
more tightly drawn exemptions to the required use of negative pressure
enclosures, the Agency also raised the possibility that data to be submitted
about alternative control systems might result in a limitation, rather than
an expansion of the walk-in enclosure requirements (55 FR 29720).

Further the 1990 proposal specifically focused on whether work within
walk-in enclosures was the optimum method to protect asbestos workers. It is
widely accepted that employees who disturb asbestos, and who contact
deteriorated asbestos during their work are most at risk (see e.g., Ex.
1-344, p. 1-12). In its earlier response to the Court's remand, OSHA noted
that the "record of the 1986 standard contains no data concerning whether
employees working within the negative pressure enclosures also benefit from
reduced exposure, whether working inside enclosures may introduce other
potential work hazards such as heat stress. Further rulemaking is necessary
to develop this information." (54 FR 52026, Dec. 20, 1989). In the proposal,
OSHA reiterated this statement and again raised this issue (55 FR 29715).

The rulemaking record reflected this two-part inquiry. Data and comment were
submitted concerning the effectiveness of NPEs in protecting employees within
the enclosure, and their effectiveness in protecting "bystander" employees
and adjacent areas from asbestos contamination. The record presents a mixed
case on both issues. First, very limited data were submitted showing that
employees working within the enclosures experienced reduced asbestos levels
because of the enclosures themselves, or the ventilation provided by negative
air machines, in spite of claims that the enclosures and ventilation produce
such results. In fact claims were made that in comparing work within
enclosures to work without enclosures, "enclosures consistently came out
higher in terms of what the person inside the enclosure is exposed to"
(Exxon, Tr. 2678). However, the record contains some data which show that
properly designed and installed NPEs may limit the spread of asbestos
contamination to adjacent areas and employees. However, the record also
demonstrates that other systems, properly installed and performed by trained
employees will also limit the spread of asbestos contamination. These are
discussed in depth below.

Based on this record and on the Agency's experience and expertise, OSHA has
concluded that although negative pressure enclosure systems are effective in
many circumstances in protecting workers both within and outside the
enclosure, other systems are equally effective in designated circumstances.
Additionally, the demonstration in this rulemaking that other systems can be
effective, supports regulatory provisions which do not stifle continued
development and refinement of control strategies for asbestos work.

2. Effectiveness of NPEs in Protecting Employees Working Within the Enclosure

As noted above, little data were submitted showing that employees working
within the enclosure have reduced exposures because of the enclosure itself,
or other components of the NPE system. Although much data was alluded to
during the hearing, e.g., "* * * 10 years of real, real projects with rooms
full of data, * * * we have some nice summaries that I can give you * *
*."(Tr. 3133). However, none of these data was submitted to the record. Also,
NIOSH testified during the rulemaking hearing, "we are not aware of any
studies evaluating their (negative pressure enclosures) effectiveness or
delineating important parameters such as minimum pressure differential,
minimum air flow, or maximum volumes feasible for various barrier materials."
(Tr. 228). BCTD noted a study in which "two MIT researchers estimated "that
total exposures using the HEPA negative pressure system might be about
four-fold less than they would be without the system" (Ex. 143 at 90). OSHA
notes that this estimate was derived from "assumptions" of the study team,
and was unsupported by exposure data. Further, the baseline exposure model
was based on a much earlier study of activities cleaning up contamination in
a building. During this rulemaking hearing, the author of that study
described it as "extremely unique, * * * not representative of buildings in
the United States" (Tr. 2157). OSHA therefore regards the MIT exposure
reduction estimate as unsupported and too speculative to serve as a basis for
regulatory decision making.

Exposure data submitted to this rulemaking record which reflected personal
samples within negative pressure enclosures do not support the view that
working within such enclosures by itself will ensure reduced employee
exposure. In fact, data were submitted which showed that employees working
within negative pressure enclosures under some circumstances were exposed to
excessive levels of asbestos (see below). OSHA recognizes that a showing of
elevated levels from any one project or series of projects does not indict
the control method as the cause of such elevations. However, numerous
submissions from various sources which show elevated exposure levels with no
indication of improper system installation indicates that in operation, the
use of negative pressure enclosure systems does not assure effective exposure
reduction to the employees performing the work.

Thus, Union Carbide submitted 1,000 exposure measurements "generally
obtained from jobs where insulation was removed from piping of 1" -14"
diameter and from other miscellaneous jobs removing asbestos from vessels"
(Ex. 7-108). More than one half of the samples were over the proposed PEL of
0.1 f/cc, and most of those were over the previous PEL of 0.2 f/cc.
Additional data showing high exposures within negative pressure enclosures
compared to relatively low exposure levels for glove bag use were submitted
by Arco Products, Inc. (Ex. 7-139) and Grayling (7-144). The Arco submission
contained monitoring results from 9 personal samples taken within the
enclosure. These ranged from 0.01 to 0.44 f/cc with a mean on 0.28 f/cc.
Lower exposure levels for work within NPEs was shown by data submitted by the
Asbestos Abatement Council, presenting data incorporating air monitoring
results for over 200 projects, collected from four different contractors over
an eight year time period. These data showed area samples ranging from 0.12
to 0.15 f/cc, while personal samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.07 f/cc (Ex.
1-142).

Various reasons were advanced for the presence of elevated exposure levels
within negative pressure enclosures. Thus Dr. Sawyer testified "I have seen
configurations that not only don't work maintaining the enclosure integrity,
but they actually can increase fiber burdens in the contamination area * * *
(t)his involves * * * a HEPA filter by itself without a drive mechanism,
without a fan to force air through it" (Tr. 2176). "I can anecdotally tell
you what I've seen out there, but a lot of the systems just don't work, and
some of them can actually increase the hazard to workers" (Id at 2177-78).

In view of the disparity in the submitted data, OSHA concludes that negative
pressure enclosure systems, like other control systems which depend on proper
installation, design and supervision for effectiveness, can vary in
protection they afford to employees working within. Unlike engineering
systems permanently installed which are capitalized by the facility owner,
negative pressure systems are installed for the duration of the job, and
economic pressures are exerted to hold down the time and cost of the
installation.

Thus, the support for the use of NPEs to reduce employee exposure is mixed.
OSHA is also concerned that other health and safety hazards may result from
work in negative pressure enclosure systems. For example, problems with toxic
adhesives were noted in the record. Levels of methylene chloride, used to
seal poly sheeting to underlying surfaces to contain work areas have been
measured at over the PEL for that substance (Ex. 1-24). Some of the
polyethylene used for sheeting may be combustible (Ex. 7-18). Certain
industries reported particular hazards of NPEs. For example, a representative
of Arco Products Co. commented that in the gasoline industry hazards
included: build-up of gases inside the enclosure, heat stress, fire hazards,
lack of good ventilation, difficulty in working with mobile equipment,
difficulties in communicating and exiting during emergencies (Ex. 7-139).

Various solutions to these problem were suggested. Thus, it was suggested
that less toxic adhesives be substituted for methylene chloride; that poly
sheets can be attached without adhesives (BCTD, Ex. 143); that heat stress be
eliminated by increasing the number of air changes per hour within the
enclosure; that a transparent window be installed in each enclosure to
facilitate communication (Ex. 7-6); and other such adaptations. Certain of
these suggestions were criticized as ineffective. For example, Union Carbide
stated in its post-hearing submission, "(w)e have observed that even when 8
to 12 air changes per hour are provided to the enclosure, on certain days the
inside of the enclosure temperature has risen as high as 140 degrees F. The
heat stress situation is further exacerbated by the body coveralls worn by
the workers" (Ex. 113 p. 6).

OSHA believes that some of these potential problems attributable to negative
pressure enclosures may be averted. However, the record also indicates that
the use of this control technique shares with other asbestos control methods,
a primary reliance upon the skill and training of designers and workers to
assure its effectiveness. In addition, under some circumstances even the
proper use of negative pressure enclosures can introduce additional hazards
into the workplace.

One feature of some negative pressure enclosure systems, negative air
ventilation, was singled out by some participants as the primary means of
reducing exposures to employees working within them. OSHA notes however, that
the requirement for NPEs as adopted in the 1986 rule, did not contain any
criteria for such ventilation, and that the rationale for requiring NPEs did
not rest on the capability of ventilation to reduce employee exposure.
Therefore, OSHA regards the recommendation for requiring special ventilation
as a new claim, to be supported by evidence and testimony submitted to this
record.

One of the main characteristics of the negative pressure enclosure system is
that the air pressure inside the enclosure is less than outside the
enclosure. This pressure difference is created by a fan exhausting air,
through a filter, from inside the enclosure to outside the enclosure. Under
negative pressure, any leaks in the walls of the enclosure will result in
clean air coming into the enclosure, rather than contaminated air leaking to
the outside. The system is primarily designed to keep asbestos from
contaminating the building. As stated earlier, this approach does not appear
to improve working conditions inside the enclosure. Negative air ventilation
draws clean air from outside the enclosure at sufficient quantities and at
strategic locations, so as to provide clean air in the worker's breathing
zone. Support for negative air ventilation was submitted by numerous
participants. For example, Mr. D'Angelo testified that "negative air
ventilation is the single most effective engineering control reducing worker
exposure as well as reducing the risk to adjacent bystanders or other
operations." Further, he recommended a minimum of 8 and up to 20 air changes
per hour to assure appropriate ventilation is maintained (Tr. 3078, 3087).
This process, "which has expanded on the negative pressure enclosure, (is)
called air flush methodology" (Tr. 3085).

Other participants also supported the use of "air flushing" techniques, or
directed make-up air. Chip D'Angelo, an asbestos abatement consultant
described the principle as moving airborne fibers out of the work area with
air velocity, thereby "flushing" the area by bringing in air from sources
outside the enclosure additional to that brought through the decontamination
chamber. He further described moving the air away from the worker and toward
the negative air filtration machines and directing the moving air to "dead
spots" in the enclosure by use of baffles and flexiducts (Tr. 3035) (see
BCTD, Ex. 143 p. 90, and citations therein). Mr. Cook, an asbestos abatement
contractor, appearing for the BCTD, testified that "it's a fairly easy
technology to implement, depending on the situation."(Tr. 805). Mr. Medaglia,
president of an engineering firm suggested adding to the definition of a
negative pressure enclosure, the phrase "* * * all areas within the enclosure
are swept by the flowing air towards the exhaust fans * * *" (Tr. 3052).
Other support was provided by New Jersey White Lung Association (Tr. 601-2),
NIOSH (Tr. 228 and 257), R. Sawyer (Tr. 2161), D. Kirby (Tr. 170), Global
Consumer Services (Tr. 2341) and J. Cook of QSI International (Tr. 804.)
However, some engineers who testified did not utilize the technique;

Exxon noted in its testimony that "you can't, quite honestly, get enough
volume of air velocity to convince yourself you are going to get good equal
mixing within an entire enclosure" (Tr. 2680); and NIOSH noted in its
submitted testimony, that "we are not aware of any studies evaluating their
effectiveness (NPE's) or delineating important parameters such as * * *
minimum air flow" (Ex. 9). NIOSH recommended that OSHA incorporate into the
rule for negative-pressure enclosures, design requirements for air-flow
patterns within the enclosure to move airborne particles away from the
worker" (Ibid).

Although "air flushing" is the ventilation approach most recommended for use
within negative pressure systems, actual data showing its success is limited.
In recognition of the support from engineers who have utilized these systems,
OSHA is requiring a performance based version of "air flushing" as a
component of the negative pressure enclosure system. OSHA is also requiring
ventilation which "directs the air away from exposed employees" when other
controls are used for Class I work where no there is insufficient data to
support a "negative exposure assessment."

Participants also argued that the use of negative pressure systems under
stated circumstances was unnecessary and would not contribute to employee
protection against asbestos exposure. Working outdoors was one such
circumstance. Amoco submitted data in which 95% amosite was removed from an
outdoor pipe run without negative pressure enclosure in which most samples
indicated very low fiber levels (Ex. 7-39). However, the following work
practices were also used: restricted access, immediate and double bagging of
debris or use of airtight chutes, barricaded area, use of HEPA equipped
vacuums, respirator, decontamination procedures, and training and supervision
of the operation by a competent person.

OSHA believes that outdoor Class I work may be safely done without
enclosures. Therefore, paragraph (g) allows all outdoor Class I work to be
conducted using other control methods, such as a glove bag system, so long as
the specifications and work practices for such systems are followed. In
addition, decontamination procedures for all Class I work, outdoors as well
as indoors, including decontamination facilities and showers, must be made
available for all Class I work, including that performed outdoors.

As discussed above, the negative pressure enclosure requirement in the 1986
standard lacked specificity. BCTD recommended that OSHA specify the number of
air changes per hour required in the negative pressure enclosure (Ex. 143, p.
94). They reasoned that this would improve ventilation within the enclosure
and reduce worker exposure. Union Carbide testified that they use 8 to 12
changes per hour (Tr. 2255) and Chip D'Angelo recommended 10 changes per hour
(Ex. 99). New Jersey White Lung Association representative suggested 8
changes per hour (Tr. 482). BCTD and others also proposed that the negative
pressure differential be increased from the recommended 0.02 column inches
water in Appendix F (Ex. 143, p. 95) "because of fluctuations inside the
enclosure."

In several published articles, Spicer and D'Angelo expressed their support
for these recommendations and further suggested that pressure measurements be
made at several points within the enclosure (Ex. 9-34 NN, Tr. 3126). The use
of a manometer to measure the pressure differential between the enclosure and
the area outside the enclosure was also supported by BCTD and D'Angelo and
Spicer primarily because this device would provide immediate notice if there
were a loss of pressure and therefore increased potential for fiber escape
(Ex. 143, p. 96 and Ex. 9-34 NN). He estimated the cost of a manometer at
$20.00 (Tr. 3078).

-- Use additional air filtration machines in areas of especially high
fiber concentrations, to serve as "scrubbers"
-- Use at least one negative air filtration machine per room in
multi-room enclosures
-- Provide an independent power source and back-up HEPA unit for use in
case of failure
-- Smoke test the enclosure for leaks
-- Pre-filter inlet air (Ex. 143, p. 97)

Most of these recommendations appear to be beneficial. Requiring smoke
testing to detect leaks is adopted by the Agency as part of required set-up
procedures when such enclosures are used. Others, such as requiring
"additional air filtration machines * * * where exposures are especially
high" appear to be sound engineering advice but would present enforcement
problems, if included in the regulatory text (Ex. 143). Instead, as part of
the mandatory criteria for NPEs, when used to control exposure in Class I
jobs, the Agency is requiring "competent persons" to oversee the installation
of such systems, and employees to be protected within such enclosures by
ventilation systems which minimize their asbestos exposure. OSHA believes
that its provisions on negative pressure systems will protect employees
working within them.

Based on the above extensive analysis of the many studies and comments, OSHA
has concluded that NPEs are not appropriate as a universal requirement. They
usually protect bystanders well, but not always workers within the
enclosures, and can sometimes create other problems. Consequently, OSHA is
permitting alternatives to NPEs in appropriate circumstances and is upgrading
requirements for NPEs when they are used.

Also, OSHA believes that various alternative requirements in this final
revised standard triggered by Class I, II, and III work, some of which are
components of negative pressure systems will protect adjacent or "bystander"
employees under most situations. Thus, mandatory critical barriers for most
Class I, some Class II and III work will bar passage of fugitive asbestos
fibers; and, clarifying the responsibilities of the various employers on a
multi-employer worksite, paragraph (d) will protect all work site employees
from fugitive emissions.

3. What Other Control Systems Can be Allowed for Asbestos Work Which
Involves High Risk Materials?

OSHA is allowing other control systems for Category I asbestos work, but
only under stated conditions. Thus, the second asbestos control system
permitted for use for Category I asbestos work is a glove bag system which
meets the requirements of the standard, and is used only in the limited
situations listed in paragraph (g), i.e. straight runs of piping and to
remove intact TSI.

Other technologies recommended by the accredited project designer or
competent person based on supporting data showing their effectiveness may
also be used. Whenever a technology is used which is not referenced in the
standards, the employer must notify OSHA before the asbestos job, and include
in the notification the basis for the project designer's or certified
industrial hygienist's decision that the new technology will be equally
effective as other technologies referenced in the appendix. Daily personal
and periphery area monitoring must be conducted for all such jobs, as well as
clearance samples at the termination of the abatement job.

Glove Bag Systems

The decision to allow increased glove bag use is based on the considerable
comment and evidence submitted during this proceeding concerning the safety
and effectiveness of glove bag use. OSHA had proposed to permit only
small-scale, short duration removals to be conducted using glove bags;
however the Agency noted that it was considering whether alternatives,
including glove bags, to negative pressure enclosures for renovation, removal
and demolition operations should be allowed (55 FR at 29716).

In the 1986 standard, glove bag effectiveness was considered too uncertain
to allow as a preferred control. Therefore OSHA relegated glove bag use to
small-scale, short duration jobs, or jobs exempt from the negative pressure
enclosure requirement because of the configuration of the work environment.
However OSHA noted that glove bag use could generally be expected to reduce
exposures to below 0.1 f/ cc (51 FR 22711).

In the preamble to its proposed amendments the Agency noted that available
data indicated that glove bags in use may not always provide adequate
protection. In large part, the Agency based this preliminary evaluation on
the results of an evaluation performed by NIOSH in which improperly used
glove bags resulted in excessive fiber counts.

As noted above, this final construction standard expands the conditions in
which glove bag use is allowed. Now, glove bag use for removal of TSI and
surfacing ACM is allowed without quantity limitation for intact TSI for
straight runs of piping.

OSHA believes these decisions are well supported by this rulemaking record.
Many participants urged OSHA to expand the conditions for permitting glove
bag use. For example the Dow Chemical Company stated, "removal of asbestos
containing material from pipes or pipelines can best be accomplished with the
use of glove bags in all instances, not just when pipes are elevated.
Needless to say, the employees carrying out the operation must be trained and
adequately supervised to the glove bags properly." (Ex. 7-103). The American
Paper Institute and the National Forest Products Association stated that
"(w)e fully agree with the field personnel that there should be no linear
footage limit for the removal of asbestos insulation on pipe when proper
glove bag techniques are used" (Ex. 7-74 at 9). The National Insulation and
Abatement Contractors Association commented "(a) skilled asbestos abatement
mechanic can certainly remove in excess of 21 linear feet in properly used
glove bags in as safe a manner as he or she can less than 21 feet. * * * (i)n
addition, the implied restriction against glove bag use outside of
small-scale, short-duration work ignores the advances made in glove bag
practices and worker skills" (Ex 7-72 at 2).

Mr. Vest of the U.S. Air Force commented: "(t)he regulation should clearly
allow for * * * operations that are not small-scale, short duration but are
also not within the purview of the full requirements for a regulated area. We
believe multiple glove bag operations would fall into this category; this
in-between category should require training and additional procedures, but
not necessarily "negative pressure enclosures." James Snyder, representing
the American Paper Institute, maintained that there should be no linear limit
as long as proper glove bag techniques were used (Ex. 7-74). Exhibits 7-9,
7-19, 7-21, 7-26, 7-32, 7-33, 7-50, 7-63, 7-72, 7-73, 7-74, 7-76, 7-95, 7-99,
7-102, 7-103, 7-106, 7-107, 7-120, 7-121, 7-125, 7-128, 7-130, 7-139, 7-144,
and 7-146 also supported expanded glove bag use.

In addition, to these generalized statements of support for expanded use of
glove bags, participants submitted data to show the effectiveness of glove
bags in protecting workers. For example, the U.S. Air Force, introduced data
(Ex. 3-9). The large majority of measurement were below 0.1 f/cc. Only 54 of
the 370 measurements sets were over 0.1 f/cc, some of which were within the
sampling and analytical error margin of 25%.

Dr. Vernon Rose of the University of Alabama at Birmingham submitted a paper
entitled: "Analysis of PCM asbestos air monitoring results for a major
abatement project" (Ex. 7-194), in which over 2000 sampling results were
presented, taken over a five year period during which thermal system
insulation was removed from a single building. This study provides very
extensive data on closely observed work which the authors described as "* * *
ideal conditions existed to support the proper abatement of ACM" (Ex. 7-194).
However, they also noted that the environment was generally quite dusty and
that since the results were PCM counts, they might overestimate the true
exposure level. The results are summarized Table I.

Table I. -- Asbestos Fiber Levels During Various Removal Operations

[Ex. 7-194]

Sample description

No. samples

Mean (f/cc(3))

Confidence interval

Full enclosure-entrance

303

0.026

0.021-0.033

Full enclosure-background

333

0.022

0.019-0.025

Mini-enclosure-entrance

35

0.022

0.016-0.036

Mini-enclosure-background

38

0.023

0.013-0.058

At glove bag

430

0.037

0.034-0.041

Glove bag-background

386

0.028

0.025-0.031

Full enclosure-clearance

161

0.002

0.002-0.003

Mini-enclosure-clearance

94

0.006

0.005-0.008

Pre-work

39

0.013

0.010-0.018

Full enclosure-personal

116

0.233

0.177-0.327

Full enclosure-within

160

0.119

0.097-0.152

Except for those taken within the negative pressure enclosure, all sample
means, including those taken at and away from glove bags are well below the
new PEL of 0.1 f/cc.

In OSHA's view, the large amount of data contained in this study
demonstrating that exposure levels at the glove bag consistently were well
below the PEL of 0.1 f/cc supports the effectiveness of glove bags in
protecting the asbestos worker.

Additional data were submitted by Grayling Industries and Control Resource
Systems, Inc., glove bag manufacturers (Ex. 7-144). Personal breathing zone
measurements representing varied removals are almost all below OSHA's
proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc. After the hearing, Grayling submitted letters from
some of the contractors and organizations in charge of the projects for which
data was submitted, which detailed the procedures followed by employees
during the jobs where low exposure levels were recorded. (Ex. 111). These
conditions correspond to the specifications and work practices which OSHA is
requiring in this standard for glove bag use.

Virtually all of the participants who opposed expanded use of glove bags for
removal jobs, cited the NIOSH study referred to above. (See e.g. Ex. 143 at
98-100). The study was conducted jointly by NIOSH and EPA in 1985, and its
results were made public, as a Health Hazard Evaluation (Exs. 1-1, 1-2,
1-20). It has also formed the basis for NIOSH's institutional position on
glove bags published as "An Evaluation Glove Bag Containment in Asbestos
Removal" in October 1990. (submitted post-hearing as Ex. 125). Based on the
data and analysis in that document, NIOSH's spokesperson, Richard Lemen
testified at the rulemaking hearing:

NIOSH has found that airborne fibers are released in the work place when
glove bags are used to remove asbestos pipe. Although the reasons for these
releases were not determined, the study indicated that glove bags did not
control asbestos exposures as anticipated. Thus, NIOSH strongly supports OSHA
in requiring that negative-pressure enclosures be used in conjunction with
glove bags. Furthermore, NIOSH recommends that OSHA require the use of
respiratory protection when glove bags are used. At a minimum, NIOSH
recommends that workers should be required to wear the most protective
air-purifying respirators * * * (Tr. 229)

The study evaluated the removal of asbestos containing pipe lagging using
glove bags from four public school buildings. The data were obtained during
week-long surveys in each of the buildings. According to the abstract in the
evaluation: "the same work crew removed asbestos-containing pipe lagging in
all four schools. Personal exposures to airborne fibers were determined using
the NIOSH method" (Ex. 125). NIOSH summarized the results: "* * * In three of
the four facilities studied, workers were exposed to airborne asbestos
concentrations above the OSHA PEL. Only in the last building where the
removal took place, were exposure levels reduced to below the new OSHA PELs."

Interpretation of the results of this study varied. BCTD viewed the study as
supporting its view that glove bags should not be permitted for other than
small scale, short duration jobs because they do not provide reliable
protection for bystanders. (Ex. 143, p. 98). HEI concluded, based on the
NIOSH study, that "* * * glove bags should never be used as a stand alone
abatement isolation procedure for long pipe runs" (HEI, Ex. 1-344, p. 5-48).
Clearly these results call into question any expansion of permitted glove bag
use. However, after paying close attention to the conditions, personnel and
equipment utilized in the NIOSH study, and to the rest of the record, OSHA
believes that glove bag systems, when properly deployed and supplemented by
barriers, are capable of protecting both the abatement worker and bystander
employee.

Details of the improper usage in the NIOSH study were pointed out by
Grayling and CI and by the NIOSH investigators themselves; "the methods
employed by workers * * * violated current state-of the art glove bag
procedures * * * (t)he glove bags contained over four times the recommended
material, they were opened up and slid down the pipe, * * * (t)hey were used
as a receptacle rather than as a glove bag, * * * the envelope was slit to
speed the removal process, * * * bags were being sealed while removal was
taking place * * *" and other improper procedures (Ex. 130, Ex. 125). In
addition, although NIOSH noted "[w]orker training and experience are
important components in a reliable system of control measure, * * * (in this
study) the work crew was not trained in the proper use of glove bags" (Ex.
125, p. 20).

Representatives of the glove bag industry also noted that since the study
was undertaken in 1985-86, the equipment used by the workers, has been
replaced by better designed and more protective equipment and materials. For
example, one of the glove bags used in the study employed a zippered
connection system, which "promote(s) the free flow of contaminated air from
the glove bag during removal * * *," and the "one-size fits all" glove bag
has been replaced by a "greater number of designs and configurations of glove
bags * * * (for) T's, elbows, valves, verticals and extended runs" (Ex. 130,
p. 3).

The study showed that by the time the removal activity reached the fourth
(final) building, the work crew, having been "trained" by a variety of
on-the-job methods, such as "trial and error," advice from the survey team,
and watching a videotape, exposure levels were dramatically reduced. The
pre-removal levels were not lower at the final facility, approximately the
same amount of asbestos was removed as in the other operations and the
authors stated that the lagging was in generally good condition throughout
the study -- lending further credence to the hypothesis that the use of
improved work practices led to generation of lower fiber levels. The report
concluded with a list of recommendations for work practices for glove bag
use.

OSHA believes that the NIOSH study should be viewed as a demonstration of
poor work practices by untrained employees. The Agency notes that although
the NIOSH study contains carefully presented and analyzed exposure data, the
study design was compromised by the intervention of the investigators in
instructing the workers. Further, since the workers were untrained, and for
the most part did not use the glove bags correctly to attempt to isolate the
disturbances, the study is of limited utility in identifying problems of
glove bag systems when they are used correctly.

NIOSH speculated that ignorance of proper glove bag procedures was common
for plant maintenance personnel, asbestos operations and maintenance
personnel, and many asbestos removal contractors who use glove bags only
occasionally" (Ex. 125, p. 53). If indeed this is so, it suggests that short
of prohibiting glove-bag removals entirely, restricting permitted usage to,
for example, maintenance work (small- scale, short-duration work) may result
in limiting permitted glove bag work to where it is likely to be performed
incorrectly. It also suggests that, the frequency of glove bag work, rather
than the size of the removal project is more relevant to its effectiveness.
Other participants echoed this caution, for example, David Kirby of Oak Ridge
National Laboratory testified that glove bag usage should be conditioned on
showing quarterly frequency of glove bag usage (Tr. 116-17).

OSHA concludes that when conscientiously used by well-trained,
well-supervised personnel, glove bags can effectively reduce asbestos fiber
release. The NIOSH study demonstrated clearly that the obverse is also true;
when glove bags are used improperly by untrained or insufficiently trained
workers, airborne fiber levels can become significantly elevated.
Consequently, based on this extensive evidence and analysis, OSHA is
permitting wider use of glove bag technology in the final standard, but is
including additional requirements to improve the effectiveness of their use.
The Agency notes that the new regulatory text prescribing the specifications
and work practices for allowable glove bag removals would prohibit the kind
of removal activity observed in the NIOSH study.

Based on its study, NIOSH recommended detailed work practices and
specifications for glove bag use. OSHA has incorporated the major
recommendations into the standard, either as part of the overall requirements
for asbestos removal, or as required components of permitted glove bag
systems. For example, NIOSH recommends that workers "spray frequently during
the removal process so that newly exposed surfaces are wetted." OSHA requires
that all work be performed using wet methods. "Wet methods" are defined as,
applying sufficient water to ACM and PACM during the work operation so that
fibers, if released, are prevented from becoming airborne. Other
recommendations likewise are covered by more generic requirements.

For Class I work in which glove bags are used, OSHA is requiring that 2
persons perform the glove bag removal. BCTD recommended that 2 persons
perform glove bag work stating that "* * * the operation can be hard-pressed
to adjust the HEPA vacuum flow rates or water pressure in the sprayer while
his/her hands are in the bag" (Ex. 143, p. 125). BCTD also felt that proper
decontamination required a "buddy system" involving a second worker.

Exxon representative, Mr. Booher, testified that their practices is to have
2 persons per glove bag (Tr. 2673). Mr. Sledge of Naval Sea Systems Command
testified that two personal normally perform glove bag operations in their
facilities, usually using glove bags under negative pressure (Tr. 420). OSHA
agrees and believes that proper use of glove bags in removing high-risk ACM
(TSI and surfacing ACM) requires at least two persons. The Agency also notes
that required training of employees must cover detailed glove bag procedures.
Many of the detailed work practices recommended by NIOSH are advisory, i.e.
use "sprayer of sufficient length," will be covered in training, and/or are
encompassed by more general requirements.

Other Systems

Although glove bag systems were the alternative system most discussed during
the rulemaking, participants submitted data on other systems which were
claimed to effectively isolate asbestos dust during removal. The Agency has
reviewed the data and comment on these submissions and has listed four
additional systems as permitted for Class I work under stated circumstances
in paragraph (g)(5). The Agency emphasizes that the listing of any system is
not an endorsement by OSHA. The listing merely indicates that various
combinations of engineering controls and work practices represented by these
systems, when properly carried out, and when all other provisions of these
standards, e.g., training, competent person supervision, exposure assessments
and respirator use where required, are found by the Agency on this record to
constitute effective means of controlling employee exposure to asbestos.

Two of the systems are modifications of glove bag systems. One, a negative
pressure glove bag system, was presented as an alternative by several
participants. One witness stated that "the nuclear ship repair industry has
used pipe containment glove bags for years * * * all of this work has been
required to be performed with constant negative pressure being maintained
inside the glove bag during removal operations" (Tr. 3028). A panel
testifying on behalf of Union Carbide described a negative-pressure glove bag
technology which they have developed (Tr. 2192 and Ex. 7-108). M. Patel, an
industrial hygienist at Union Carbide, described it in his written testimony:

The glove bag system is used as follows: The glove bag is connected to the
glove/hose connector. All the tools needed to remove asbestos are placed in
the inner pouch of the glove bag. The bag is installed on a pipe utilizing
the zipper provided at the top. The shoulder is fastened on both ends of the
glove bag with tourniquets. The rest of the system is connected. The
insulation is wetted with amended water using the portable garden sprayer.
The asbestos is cut and falls through the open sliding gate valve and
collects in the waste bag. Vacuum in the bag and in the rest of the system is
adjusted to prevent collapse of the bag. When the asbestos waste collected in
the bag is almost full, the sliding gate valve is closed as the vacuum in the
system is slowly controlled by adjusting the splitter valve, and the bag is
carefully sealed and removed. A new bag is installed and the sliding gate
valve opened. When all asbestos inside the glove bag is removed, the pipe and
the wall of the glove bag above the middle zipper inside the bag are rinsed
with amended water. The middle zipper is closed to isolate the upper
compartment while vacuum is still being pulled.

The tourniquet on either end of the glove bag is loosened and the bag is
moved to the next position. The middle portion of the bag is unzipped and the
work is continued Ex. 9-43).

The panel members reported that the mean value of the exposure for the
modified negative-pressure glove bag was 0.02 f/cc.

In a post-hearing submission, Union Carbide submitted a large number of
additional measurements from various operations supporting the relative
effectiveness of their negative-pressure glove bag method of asbestos
control. These data showed both glove bags and negative pressure glove bag
personal exposure levels were low, and well below those for negative pressure
enclosures as measured by the company.

Some of the exposure monitoring results showed personal samples above the
new PEL of 0.1 f/cc. Union Carbide suggested, that employees performing Class
I work using the modified negative pressure glove-bag, wear respiratory
protection. OSHA is requiring that all employees who perform Class I work
wear respirators.

Based on these data, OSHA is allowing negative pressure glove bags for Class
I work, subject to similar limitations as "regular" glove bags.

Another method allowed for Class I work is the negative pressure glove box.
This isolation device, is a rigid containment, unlike the glove bag, which is
made of flexible material. Because it can be constructed of strong,
impermeable material, common glove bag failures due to holes, leaks and
collapse, would theoretically be avoided.

Mark Mazzara of SDS International Builders submitted several documents
describing a negative pressure glove box, which his firm was marketing. The
accompanying brochures described it as follows:

* * * system allows for the removal of ACM on pipes by creating a closed
work area around the pipe section to be worked on. * * * consists of work
box, together with a pressure barrier generated by the systems inherent
Negative Pressure filtration system. The Work Box is a maneuverable element
of sturdy metal construction that is positioned around the unit of pipe to be
worked on * * * [it] is fitted with standard gloved apertures allowing for
access into the closed system for the asbestos workers. At the base of the
Work Box is an aperture feeding into a bagging outlet into which the
liberated ACM is passed. This allows for easy bagging of the ACM and its
subsequent disposal. * * * [it] is attached to a * * * negative pressure
generator, that allows the creation of the pressure barrier that allows the
creation of the closed system, preventing the escape of hazards materials
into surrounding area (Ex. 7-98).

The submissions contained numerous sampling results indicating that low
fiber levels were maintained during the use of this device. Accompanying
these was a letter from the State of New Jersey in which the Division of
Building and Construction (Frank J. Kuzniacki) stated that he felt that the
device "provided a safe and cost effective alternative to standard glove bag
removal."

The last method specifically listed for Class I use is designated the "water
spray" process. In submissions to the docket and in testimony at the public
hearing, representatives of Hydrous Dust Control Systems, Inc. described an
alternate method of control for use in work on asbestos covered pipes which
they called the Portam Process. This process relies on water spray to provide
a barrier between the worker and the ACM. In written materials it was
described as follows:

Engineered designed sprays are configured so as to create a liquid barrier
on every plane. The spray is so designed as to throw a heavy droplet of
liquid giving it both velocity and direction. On at least one of these planes
* * * the heavy water droplets are forced into collision creating a very fine
aerosol which is contained within liquid barriers. A water containment device
is placed around the spray rails with an open access and double drain
facility. A vacuum hose is connected to the drain facility creating a slight
pressure differential (negative pressure), in the contained area. When water
covers the drain area the pressure differential is maximized in the drain
hose pulling the waste and water very rapidly to the remote interceptor. This
movement creates a shock pulse which is quite visual and is reflected at the
workhead. The sudden movement of air within the work zone helps to stimulated
the fine aerosol droplets creating eddy current. These eddy currents promote
a 360 deg. precipitation around the pipe (Ex. 1-171).

Data were presented showing that use of this system achieved consistently
low exposure levels. However, the complexity of the system, and its
uniqueness require, as the manufacturer recommends, additional training for
effective use. Therefore OSHA is allowing this system to be used only by
workers who are trained in a supplemental 40 hour training course in the
specific use of this system, including at least 8 hours of which must be
hands-on training. Although BCTD stated that this system possessed a high
potential for exposure because it is not a sealed system, (Ex. 143, at 103),
OSHA believes that the technology of the water spray system is sufficiently
proven by the data submitted.

Other specific systems which do not easily fit the descriptions of the above
systems were discussed during the rulemaking. Some, such as the "Lyons
Trough" appear promising, however, the data submitted are too limited for
OSHA to determine effectiveness in the rulemaking. Several TEM and PCM
measurements were made during a "controlled demonstration" which lasted 31
minutes and during "field evaluation" of 29 minutes. The personal sample from
the former was below the limit of detection by PCM, and the personal sample
from the latter measured 0.002 f/cc by PCM (Ex. 135).

Other methods appeared too limited in application to be "generically"
approved by OSHA, and/or appeared highly dependent on worker behavior to
avoid failure. Such a system, devised by Tenneco, is a modified glove
bag/mini-enclosure to facilitate safe removal of small amounts of asbestos
fireproofing above ceiling tiles (Ex. 65 A-P). In its post-hearing brief, the
BCTD objected to the use of the Tenneco device for two reasons. First,
because it was held as close as possible to the ceiling and did not fit
against it, they felt there was potential for fiber escape; and second, they
questioned how effective it would be if one of the workers holding it up got
tired and dropped it. (Ex. 143, p. 103). OSHA agrees; the device may be used
therefore only as an alternative control method pursuant to the requirements
for certification in paragraph (g)(6).

Mini-Enclosures

Mini-enclosures, the other control method allowed for Class I work is
supported by a submission by BCTD which described a portable isolation
enclosure developed by J. Streiter of Southern Insulation Inc. (Ex. 119, #5).
OSHA notes, however, that mini-enclosures are manufactured by other companies
and this rule does not limit use of the device to any particular
manufacturer. In an accompanying trade paper article the portable enclosure
is described as: "a cubicle with an extendable shroud that fits on top. A
HEPA filtration system drew air down from the ceiling. Inside the enclosure
was a suited man; opposite was a trapped door with a bag attached * * * the
worker remove[d] the tile, clean[ed] off the grid and deposit[ed] everything
in the bag after opening the trap door. Suction would pull the door shut.
Within the enclosure was a shower attachment * * *" The submission also
contained air sampling data obtained during use of this apparatus while
removing ceiling tiles from a Virginia building. The results indicated that
fiber levels averaged less than 0.01 f/cc. However, as pointed out by BCTD in
its post-hearing brief there was failure to achieve clearance (0.01 f/cc
under AHERA) in this building following use of the device which "necessitated
evacuation of the work areas on several occasions." As explained elsewhere in
this document, OSHA is not requiring AHERA clearance levels to be achieved
for Class I work. If such requirements must be met, the employer should
employ all applicable controls which in some cases may exceed those in these
standards.

Class II Work

Class II asbestos work is defined as activities involving the removal of ACM
or PACM which is not TSI or surfacing ACM. According to the definition, this
includes, but is not limited to, the removal of asbestos-containing
wallboard, floor tile and sheeting, gaskets, joint compounds, roofing felts,
roofing and siding shingles, and construction mastics.

OSHA has found that the exposure potential from Class II work is generally
lower than for Class I work, when removal is conducted under substantially
similar conditions. Consequently, if the employer shows, that in any
particular job, that well-trained and experienced workers, with an
established "track record" of keeping exposures low will perform that
removal, the required controls are less stringent than those required for
Class I removals.

Removal of materials which are not TSI or surfacing ACM may be handled by
complying with work practice and engineering control requirements for Class
II in paragraph (g)(7), and the generic requirements for all asbestos work in
(g)(1) of the standard. Additionally, methods allowed for Class I removals
may be used for Class II work, unless the system cannot be adapted for Class
II work, such as in the case of the water spray process system. Glove
bags/boxes can be installed around some materials covered by the Class II
designation, such as gaskets and ceiling tiles. It is OSHA's intent to allow
Class I methods to be used for removing Class II materials when no
modification in the apparatus is required, without special notice to OSHA.

As Class II work, removal of asbestos-containing material such as floor
tiles and roofing will not be subject to quantity cut-offs for using certain
control methods. This is similar to the proposal, which would have allowed
these materials to be removed using mandated work practices, and exempted
compliant jobs from negative pressure enclosure requirements. Under the final
standard, other materials classified as "miscellaneous" by EPA such as
transite panel and valves/gaskets may be removed without quantity limitation
so long as Class II work practices are followed. Additionally, the standard
allows all other materials (except TSI and surfacing ACM) to be removed using
the generic work practices in paragraph (g)(1) which require wet methods,
HEPA vacuuming and prompt waste disposal, and pursuant to additional controls
in (g)(2) if the PEL may be exceeded.

Paragraphs (g)(7)(i) and (ii) establish "setting-up" requirements which
apply to all removals of all Class II materials. These include the
requirement that a competent person supervise the work and that where a
negative exposure assessment cannot be produced or changed conditions during
the job indicate elevated fiber levels, critical barriers or other isolation
methods must be used or where the ACM is not removed in a substantially
intact.

OSHA is also listing specific work practices for some kinds of Class II work
which are common, such as removing flooring material or roofing material, as
proposed. The generic list of work practices for all operations under this
standard in paragraph (g)(1), covers most specific practices set out for each
kind of removal. However, since both OSHA and participants believe that
stating how each kind of material must be removed in specific terms will
enhance compliance, paragraph (g)(7)(2) restates the relevant generic
requirements in terms specific to each activity. For example, using wet
methods for all asbestos work, unless the employer can show wet methods are
infeasible, is now required, in the generic requirements, for all asbestos
work [see (g)(1)]. However, wet methods encompass a range of work practices.
For example, when removing material which is bound in a matrix, misting may
be appropriate. Removing ACM or PACM which is not so bound, or where
deterioration of the ACM has occurred, would require more aggressive wetting.

Thus, in the paragraph applying to flooring removal, the employer must mist
the "snip point" used for cutting sheet flooring. For roofing removal, the
blades of all powered tools must be continually misted during use. OSHA
believes these more specific directions will help insure that work is done
protectively.

OSHA proposed to require use of wet methods to remove sheet floor covering.
RFCI guidelines state that floor tile is to be removed by prying up an edge
but no mention of the use of water on the floor tile is made. The revised
standards require the use of wet methods wherever feasible including
operations involving the removal of all floor covering materials known or
presumed to contain asbestos. P. Quirk, an asbestos consultant, recommended
that "Floor tile and sheet removal must utilize wet methods for all work"
(Ex. 3-34). A representative of the Resilient Floor and Decorative Covering
Union expressed a similar view that "the floor should be kept adequately wet
during the entire operation" (Ex. 7-37). Based on this support, OSHA has
concluded that most flooring removals must be performed using wet methods
when feasible and has included this requirement in the final with one
exception. The exception allows floor tiles to be removed intact using heat.

Specific Work Practices for Specific Class II Operations

As discussed above, certain precautions are always required for all work
under these construction and shipyard standards in paragraph (g)(1). These
are HEPA equipped vacuums, wet methods, and prompt disposal of waste and
debris. Additional provisions apply to the removal of all Class II material
[Paragraph (g)(7)]. These are required critical barriers in designated indoor
activities and dropcloths in all.

OSHA also includes more detailed work practices for specific Class II
activities, such as the removal of roofing materials and resilient flooring
material. Most of these requirements are more specific applications of
general industrial principles for handling dust- generating materials,
asbestos in particular. OSHA and many participants believe that employers are
helped by specific work practice requirements so long as they do not restrict
common sense accommodations to unique workplace conditions. The following
discussion show the reasons for and support of OSHA's decisions for specific
work practices for removal or disturbing ACM or PACM.

Flooring Operations

Flooring operations are separately discussed because of the amount of
interest in these activities manifest during the rulemaking, and the
prevalence of asbestos-containing flooring materials in buildings. Because of
the prevalence of asbestos-containing flooring, the frequency which it is
maintained and removed, and the possibility of exposure if improperly done,
specific requirements for flooring are needed to reduce significant risk to
the extent feasible.

Removal of asbestos containing flooring materials is a Class II asbestos
job. As such, it must be performed using the operation specific controls set
out in paragraph (g)(ii)(a), or when called for by an "exposure assessment
using "alternative" controls. Additional controls must be used if the
employer does not produce a "negative exposure assessment" prior to the
beginning of the job, if during the job, there is reasonable belief that a
permissible exposure level will be exceeded, or if methods are used which are
expected to result in flooring material breaking or otherwise removed in a
non-intact state. The required controls in large part mirror those of the
proposal which were based on work practice recommended by the Resilient
Flooring Covering Institute (RFCI). Additional "non-aggressive" practices are
allowed, in response to supporting data and to commenters such as Michael
Murphy of Monsanto who asked that OSHA "* * * allow the use of other
practices which achieve comparable results" (Ex. 7-125).

OSHA believes that these provisions are necessary and appropriate to reduce
risk to workers who perform this type of activity. The relative level of risk
of removing asbestos-containing flooring was considered in the rulemaking.
OSHA has not classified asbestos containing flooring as "high risk." The
degree of risk from removing these materials depends on the kind of removal
activity performed, and on the condition of the material. Data relating to
flooring removal show overall lower levels than TSI and surfacing ACM (see
e.g., Ex. 7-100; 7-132). Thus, EPA recently included resilient floor
covering, in its lowest risk category (Category I non-friable ACM). However
EPA concluded that "if these materials are in poor condition and are friable
or they are subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting or abrading, they are to
be treated as friable asbestos materials (55 FR at 48409). The OSHA record
supports these findings.

Opinions of some asbestos abatement experts familiar with a range of
asbestos removal projects agreed with the basis for EPA's and OSHA's
classification scheme. Marshall Marcus stated that flooring removals, when
well conducted are likely to involve lower exposures than removals of other
types of interior asbestos containing materials; whereas Mary Finn emphasized
that removing of flooring tile, because it cannot be saturated easily, may,
when aggressively removed, result in significant exposures (see testimony of
Marshall Marcus, Tr. 3794 and Mary Finn Tr. 3765).

OSHA's approach of requiring those removal methods which are unlikely to
elevate exposures was challenged by participants who contended that methods
for removing flooring cannot be determined at the beginning of the project.
This might occur when employees discover during the project that flooring is
resistant to removal. This may be difficult to predict in advance, as pointed
out by BCTD (Ex. 143 at 155, citing testimony of asbestos contractor and
consultant Marshall Marcus, Tr. 3794 and others). OSHA acknowledges that such
difficulties may occur. However, as pointed out by Mary Finn, many of the
variables contributing to exposures are available for consideration at the
inception of the project; "* * * the predictability of how aggressive one
must remove floor tile varies from job to job depending on the age of the
particular materials, depending on the wear that it's undergone and depending
on the techniques that the particular contractor and his workers might use"
(Tr. 3744).

Also, OSHA notes that much of the project data submitted show consistency in
practices over the entire project. In cases where more aggressive methods are
resorted to mid-job, OSHA requires a "mid-course correction:" a re-evaluation
of the exposure potential by the competent person, and the installation of
additional controls if the projection is that the exposures will exceed the
PEL.

Most "aggressive" techniques, such as "shot-blasting" may be used only after
an evaluation showed that less aggressive methods are not feasible. Even if
the evaluation of the "aggressive" method shows exposures will be below the
PEL, the employees must still install critical barriers or otherwise isolate
the removal operation [paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(2)], and employees must wear
respirators. This is required regardless of when such "aggressive" methods
were used, at the inception, or mid-way into a removal job.

Specific "non-aggressive" control methods are allowed and preferred for
removing flooring materials (tile, sheet, and mastics) which contain asbestos
and those materials for which the employer/ building owner has not verified
the absence of asbestos. The controls are "non-aggressive" work practices,
and include the practices which under OSHA's proposal would have allowed an
exemption from the requirement to erect a negative pressure enclosure for
flooring material removal (see 55 FR at 29719).

OSHA did not propose to require employers to assume that vinyl or asphalt
tile or resilient flooring was asbestos containing, although the RFCI
recommended that such an assumption be made. OSHA asked for comments on this
issue.

Several industrial hygienists agreed that the recommendation should be
followed. For example, David Kirby, industrial hygienist, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, testified that an ongoing survey of ORNL facilities showed that
"90 percent of our floor tile either contained asbestos or the mastic
material that's used to attach them to the floors contained asbestos." Mr.
Kirby recommended that it's "prudent to * * * assume that all floor tile
materials contain asbestos, unless you can prove the contrary * * *" (Tr.
124-125). According to Mr. Kirby, negating the presence of asbestos content
in flooring material entails a complex and expensive process; "taking those
materials, having them ashed, using high temperature ashing techniques, and
then the residue could be analyzed by transmission electron microscopy."
Other evidence in the record indicated the prevalence of asbestos containing
flooring material. An EPA 1988 survey, cited in the HEI report, reported that
42% of public and commercial buildings within the U.S. contain asbestos
containing floor tile (Ex. 1-344).

A review of the comments and evidence demonstrates that there is a high
degree of prevalence of asbestos-containing flooring and that there are
diagnostic difficulties in identifying asbestos fibers in flooring material.
Consequently, OSHA is changing its approach and the final standard provides
that the employers shall assume in removing flooring that it contains
asbestos and take the specific precautions unless the employer demonstrates
that the flooring materials are not asbestos-containing. Such a showing must
be based on analysis which is likely to reveal the asbestos content of the
flooring material, the backing and the mastic. No one protocol for analysis
is specified, but the standard requires that a certified industrial hygienist
(CIH) or project designer certify the analytical results.

OSHA believes that the final standard's provisions relating to flooring
removal are more comprehensive and protective than the proposal's. There, an
exemption for flooring removals from the NPE requirement was conditioned
merely on compliance with certain work practices recommended by the Resilient
Floor Covering Institute (RFCI). These practices included a prohibition of
sanding of floor or backing, use of a HEPA vacuum cleaner before and after
removal, prohibition of dry sweeping, application of new material over old
tiles without removal if possible, wet removal of residual felt, and bagging
and disposal of waste in 6 mil plastic containers. The new final provisions
allow removal to be performed by these methods, but also allow various
heating methods to be used, or any other means of loosening floor tiles,
without breakage. Unlike the proposal, an employer cannot proceed without
negative air or critical barriers, merely using non-aggressive work practices
and wet methods, unless his pre-job evaluation shows that similar floor
removals (in the same building or of the same materials and mastics) were
successfully completed by work crews with adequate training and experience in
working under these conditions.

OSHA noted in the proposal that data provided by RFCI showed that where jobs
followed their recommended practices, mean exposures to workers were between
0.0045 and 0.03 f/cc for workers performing floor tile removal, removal of
resilient sheet flooring, or removal of cutback adhesive. During the
rulemaking, additional data were submitted showing exposure levels during
flooring removals. David Kirby, OSHA witness from Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) said that he has used the RFCI work practices successfully,
maintaining personal sampling fiber levels at an average of 0.0075 f/cc
(range 0.001 to 0.029) (Tr. 99). When asked what additional precautions were
taken at his facilities during these operations, he replied that "we do use
regulated areas in the sense that we don't allow anyone in the area as we're
doing the work, and we also require workers to wear respiratory protection as
they're doing this activity, but yet we don't feel like there is * * * a need
for negative pressure enclosures." (Tr. 124). BCTD, in its post-hearing brief
argued that the RFCI methods specifically, and "non-aggressive" flooring
removal methods generally, do not always result in exposure levels which are
acceptable (Ex. 143). It cited various studies or project results submitted
to the record. Some of these results were given in terms of structures per
square centimeter, a convention of TEM. For example, Richard Kelly of
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory objected to allowing the use of RFCI
methods to control asbestos exposure during removal of asbestos containing
mastic (Ex. 11, #22). He reported that during removals in which only the
mastic contained asbestos, he had measured (by TEM) fiber levels of 33 s/cc
during dry power chipping of VAT and 0.9 s/cc during wet hand removal in what
he called a "real-world application of the RFCI procedures." He noted that
the floor was not pre-vacuumed nor was a heat gun used as described in the
recommended practices. Under its AHERA rule, EPA defines "structure" as a
microscopic bundle, cluster, fiber or matrix which may contain asbestos. OSHA
notes that such structures may be smaller and/or thinner than the asbestos
fibers required to be counted under the OSHA reference method. A general
summary of the results of these studies shows that most of the exposure
levels were below the proposed PELs when measured using the OSHA reference
method (e. g., Gobbell, 1991, exposure range, 0.01 to 0.035: AT &T, 1990,
non-detected to 0.019).

Some other studies of floor removals entered into the record showed higher
exposure levels of "structures" as detected by TEM, and defined by EPA. As
noted above, counts of structures are not comparable to fiber counts, and
OSHA believes that most "structure" counts result in significantly higher
fiber counts than would be counted by PCM.

A related issue is whether flooring material should be analyzed by TEM,
rather than by PCM. As pointed out by BCTD and other participants, floor tile
tends to generate smaller fibers which often cannot be detected under PCM;
and TEM detects these shorter asbestos fibers (and the thinner asbestos
fibers, which PCM cannot distinguish [Ex. 143, p. 147 citing Tr. 3468; Tr
3751, Tr. 3279, Tr. 473-474]. In the 1986 rulemaking OSHA considered the
issue of the relative toxicity of short asbestos fibers, which were not
required to be counted under the OSHA definition of "fiber." Then, the Agency
stated that "* * * animal studies * * * in particular the recent work by Dr.
Davis, point to a clear relationship between fiber dimension and disease
potential. The finding in these studies that thin fibers, (having an aspect
ratio of at least 3:1) greater than 5 um in length are associated with
elevated incidence of cancer and lung fibrosis is also consistent with
current knowledge regarding lung clearance mechanisms, i.e., that shorter
fibers are easily phagocytized and removed from lung tissue" (51 FR at
22613). Dosages used in OSHA's risk assessment extrapolated from studies of
human exposure, attempted to transform or reconstruct fiber counts to
correlate with fiber counts using current conventions of counting fibers only
longer than 5 um, using PCM. Similar to the conclusions reached by OSHA in
the preamble to its 1986 asbestos rule, the HEI report of 1991 found that
"experimental results described in this review indicate that short fiber
preparations have a lower toxicity than long fiber preparations, but do not
exclude their contribution to the lesions caused by the smaller number of
long fibers in the tail of the fiber length distribution * * * individual
fibers shorter than approximately 5 um appear to possess much less toxicity
than those longer than 5 um" (Ex. 1-344, p. 6-76).

The HEI Report also noted that the exposure-response relationship reported
in the literature which served as the basis for estimation of risk had
exposure expressed in terms of fibers greater than 5 um in length (Ex.
1-344). These aspects of OSHA's risk assessment, and counting protocols were
not challenged in the litigation following the 1986 rules, therefore were not
remanded to OSHA for reconsideration in the Court of Appeal's 1988 decision.
The only study submitted in its entirety, (see Freed et al, Ex. 143 at Att.
B), is of limited relevance; it is a case study, which was undertaken to show
that asbestos fiber may produce DIP (desquamative interstitial pneumonia) as
well as asbestosis. The authors note that "although over 90% of the 820
million fibers of wet lung tissue were 3 um or less in length, sufficient
numbers of fibers greater than 5 um in length were present, which could also
account for the tissue response" (Ex. 143, Att B at 332). Resolution of
whether short or long fibers are counted is not necessary for the purposes of
this revised standard, because OSHA finds that work practices and controls
are needed when working on floors regardless of the measurement method used.
OSHA does not change its conclusion and retains the provisions that airborne
asbestos measurements taken during flooring operations shall use the same
methodology as in the 1986 standard.

The Agency's analysis of data submitted showing exposure levels during
flooring removal, shows a general correlation between lower levels and
"non-aggressive" methods, and higher levels and "aggressive methods." For
example, Mary Finn of Chart Services, an asbestos consulting company,
testified that "if breakage is minimized, obviously exposures are going to go
down" (Tr. 3765). Ms. Finn submitted area sampling data from flooring removal
operations which had a mean of 0.056 f/cc as an 8-hour time-weighted average
(Ex. 9-18). She also presented data on area TEM counts taken during four
operations involving drilling through VAT -- the mean for the four samples
was 0.3 structures/cc (2 samples were below the limit of detection and one
value was 1.01 f/cc), while all four samples were below the limit of
detection when measured by PCM. BCTD cited various studies showing high fiber
levels during flooring removal (Ex. 143 at 151-153). One, the Cook data,
showed some high short term levels on one job, it was unclear what work
practices were used, other jobs done by the same firm showed exposure values
less than the PELs (see Ex. 35 and 119S). The Rosby data showed short term
data which were well within the PEL excursion limit (Ex. 119 U). Other data
pointed to by BCTD as indicating the unreliability of exposure reductions
using non-aggressive methods, merely shows that EPA clearance levels were not
achieved (Ex. 7-132), that exceedances were possible (Ex. 7-137 [it is noted
that an exposure of .11 f/cc is considered in compliance with OSHA's PEL, and
that TEM fiber counts were elevated (Ex. 119T)].

In addition to the Environ data contracted for and submitted by RFCI and
Armstrong, which was interpreted differently by the submitter and by BCTD,
these and other interested parties submitted additional data showing exposure
levels during various kinds of asbestos-containing flooring removal. Low
exposure levels were obtained in a New York State Department of Health Study,
for floor tile removal using automated infrared heating, (followed by hand
scraping)(see Ex. 7-100). As noted above, OSHA is allowing removal to be
performed using heat, so long as tiles are not broken during the removal
process. Under contract with EPA, PEI Associates performed a study which was
described in a report entitled "Evaluation of Tile and Mastic Removal at Fort
Sill" (Ex. 1-330). TEM was used to measure fiber levels resulting from use of
several different methods to remove tile and/or mastic. They found that
"airborne asbestos levels averaged 0.135 structures per cubic centimeter
(s/cc) during dry tile removal, 0.066 s/cc during wet tile removal, 0.247
s/cc during removal of mastic using citric acid and towels and 0.326 s/cc
during sand machine mastic removals. No PCM measurements were presented, and
the proportion of the TEM-measured fibers exceeding 5 um in length was not
reported.

The question of whether a negative pressure enclosure should be required for
floor tile removal, was considered during the rulemaking. Some participants,
including asbestos abatement consultant, Marshall Marcus recommended negative
pressure enclosures as a matter of course for asbestos containing flooring
removal (See e.g., Tr. 3796 and Ex. 7-37, 7-92). OSHA notes that its final
rule now requires bystander protection, when excessive exposure levels are
measured or expected. The questionable benefits to flooring removal employees
of working within a enclosure are discussed in the general discussion on NPEs
in this preamble. OSHA also notes that some exposure data submitted
concerning flooring removal exposure levels, contained relatively high
exposures for work within enclosures (see e.g., Ex. 7-134A) and that removing
flooring using dry ice in a negative pressure enclosure can result in toxic
buildups within the enclosure (see Tr. 202). Therefore OSHA is not generally
requiring flooring removal to be done within NPEs. However, where flooring
material is removed using "aggressive methods," higher fiber levels have been
reported, at least as measured by TEM (see Ex 11, #22 and 9-18). The Agency
concludes that the use of aggressive floor removal techniques in which the
material is not removed intact, such as mechanical chipping of floor tile and
shot-blast removal of mastic, are likely to result in the release of larger
amounts of fibers and must be performed within negative-pressure enclosures
or the equivalent. EPA has concluded similarly:

Removal of VAT (or other known or assumed ACM flooring or its adhesive)
which involves sanding, grinding, mechanical chipping, drilling, cutting or
abrading the material has a high probability of rendering the material
friable and capable of releasing asbestos fibers. Therefore, removal projects
which employ any of these techniques (other than small-scale-short-duration)
must be conducted as response actions, including use of a project designer,
accredited persons, and air clearance (55 FR 48409).

In response to concerns that the RFCI work practices will not be followed,
it should be pointed out that the alternate to their use is full enclosure of
the operation which is likely to be considered more burdensome than the work
practices.

Transite Removal

Removal of transite panels is considered a Class II activity in this revised
standard. As such, they are required to be removed using certain practices
and controls. These are: the intact removal of transite panels; the use of
wet methods followed by wrapping of the panels in plastic; and the lowering
of panels to the ground without breakage. These provisions are in essence the
same one proposed by OSHA in 1990 when allowing an exemption from the NPE
requirements. The 1990 proposal presented the comments of OSHA field
personnel which suggested that removal of transite panels, without regard to
quantity, should be exempt from the negative-pressure enclosure requirement
as long as the transite is removed without cutting or otherwise abrading the
material (Ex. 1-59). This suggestion was supported by numerous participants
(Ex. 7-6, 7-9, 7-23, 7-42, 7-43, 7-47, 7-52, 7-62, 7-63, 7-74, 7-79, 7-86,
7-95, 7-99, 7-103, 7-106, 7-108, 7-111, 7-112, 7-125, 7-128, 7-134, 7-144,
7-146, 7-140).

Additional work practices such as wrapping panels and lowering them intact,
were suggested in this proceeding and are incorporated in the revised
standards [see comments of Robert Welch of Columbia Gas System who
recommended wrapping intact transite panels in sheeting and lowering them
intact to the ground avoiding breakage (Ex. 7-23); and, comments of Edward
Karpetian of the Los Angeles Department of Power and Water, who recommended
that in addition, the material be HEPA vacuumed and wrapped (Ex. 7-42)]. As
noted in prior discussion of the general provisions covering construction
activities, negative pressure enclosures are not required for Class II
activities, unless they are performed along with a Class I activity for which
an NPE is required.

The rulemaking record contains strong evidence showing low exposures
resulting from transite panel removal when appropriate work practices are
followed. The submission of the American Paper Institute and the National
Forest Products Association contained sampling data taken during the removal
of transite panels from paper machine hoods (Ex. 7-74). Wet methods were used
and the area was regulated. Personal and area samples were well below 0.1
f/cc, with the 23 personal samples having an average of 0.012 f/cc (not
time-weighted). Rose Simpson of Lubrizol stated that "area monitoring samples
taken during transite removal operations at our facilities indicate exposure
levels well below the current 0.2 f/cc and the proposed 0.1 f/cc limits" (Ex.
7-86). OSHA witness David Kirby of Oak Ridge National Laboratory stated in
his comments that personal air monitoring during transite panel removal
resulted in average fiber level of 0.008 f/cc (8 hr. TWA) (Ex. 7-111). And in
a post-hearing submission (Ex. 105), he presented the fiber levels (measured
by PCM) generated during non-enclosed transite removal performed wet at ORNL,
which ranged from < 0.031 to < 0.082 f/cc (mean = 0.058 f/cc) (see also Ex.
140, where the Dow Chemical Company claimed transite removal real time levels
did not exceed 0.07 f/c).

As described above, most data show that if performed intact, transite
removal will result in exposures well below the PELs. Some evidence, however,
was presented showing exceedances. Paul Heffernan of Kaselaan&D'Angelo
Associates, Inc. stated:

* * * removal of transite panels which are not cut or broken should not be
generically allowed. Many transite panels used in interior wall construction
consist of very rough inner surfaces from which asbestos fiber is readily
released into the air. Kaselaan&D'Angelo Associates has monitored the
removal of 18" by 36" transite panels which were held in place with screws.
The transite panels were removed intact by removing the screws and lifting
the relatively small panels to the floor where they were placed in boxes. The
exposed surface of each panel was first wet with amended water before
removing the screws. The job was performed within negative pressure
containment. Airborne fiber levels exceeding 1.0 f/cc were measured. Transite
panel removal has potential for fiber release even when the panels are not
broken (Ex. 7-36).

As noted above in the flooring material discussion, OSHA is requiring job by
job evaluation of each Class II job, including transite panel removal
projects, by a competent person, as part of the requirements to perform an
initial exposure assessment. As detailed above, the data submitted to the
record show that transite panel removal without cutting usually results in
very low exposure levels. Building and facility records of past removals of
similar material will alert on-site competent persons to the exposure
potential of the panels in their facilities. For rare cases, when the
evaluation of material, condition, crew and past exposure data do not support
a "negative exposure assessment," (i.e., that excessive exposures may be
expected), additional precautions are required by the standard, including
critical barriers, and respirator use.

OSHA believes that these provisions will protect employees against
significant exposures, are feasible, and are supported by the record. In
particular OSHA finds that quantity limitations on transite panel removal
would not tend to reduce risk, and in some cases may increase fiber levels.
For example, Richard Olson of Dow Co. pointed out that if transite panel
removal were to be exempted from the negative pressure enclosure requirement
and the cutoff remained at 9 square feet as proposed, it would be necessary
to cut nearly every piece of material removed or always use a
negative-pressure enclosure (Ex. 7-103).

Cementitious Asbestos-Containing Siding (CACS)

The removal of cementitious asbestos-containing siding is a Class II
activity. OSHA is requiring the same work practices for shingle removal as
for transite panel removal. OSHA did not propose specific work practices for
removal of CACS, either to exempt this activity from the negative pressure
enclosure requirement or to qualify as a SSSD activity. However, many
participants representing a wide spectrum of interests, including states,
federal agencies, and asbestos industry organizations, recommended that OSHA
exempt CACS removal from the requirement to establish negative-pressure
enclosures; (See e.g. asbestos coordinator for Florida (Ex. 7-6); Navy Office
of Chief of Operations (Ex. 7-52); Asbestos Information Association/North
America (Ex. 7-120); New York City Department of Environmental Protection
(Ex. 126); and, The Army Corps of Engineers who also submitted the data from
a study of fiber levels generated during CACS removals Ex. 1-307).

In the Army Corps of Engineers' study cited above, three mechanical CACS
asbestos removal methods and the manual method were evaluated by monitoring
during removal of the siding. The three methods were: 1) super wet: the
siding was thoroughly wetted with water on the outfacing and back side; 2)
mist: a measured amount of water was applied to the outfacing side of the
siding only; and, 3) encapsulation: an EPA-approved commercially available
encapsulant was applied at or above the recommended application rate. These
removals took place inside enclosures and the hand method was also evaluated.
Samples were measured using TEM and results of area samples indicated all
were less than 0.005 or below the limit of detection. Two personal samples
taken "while removing cement-asbestos siding shingles from Building 523"
yielded 8 hour time-weighted averages of 0.008 and 0.012 f/cc.

Other data show low exposures during CACS removal. One where approximately
110,000 square feet, in total of CACS were moved from 43 college campus
dormitory buildings prior to demolition. The average bulk analysis of the
CACS was 17%. No outdoor area samples were higher than 0.01 f/cc by PCM for
the duration of the project. The 80 personal samples collected during the
project had an arithmetic average of 0.049 f/cc with a standard deviation of
0.041. The geometric mean was 0.04 f/ cc with not TEM data available (Ex.
7-132A). The study authors concluded that "CACS removal, even though outside
where dilution is assumed significant, should be done carefully, using as a
minimum the abatement techniques described in this paper." These included
wetting, dropcloths, and a 20-foot wide regulated area. OSHA agrees and
believes that the methods required by the standard will reduce risk
significantly for exposed workers.

Results of this study and others show that CACS removal can be performed
using work practices which minimize exposure to workers and that containment
in NPEs is neither necessary or appropriate in most cases to protect the
workers performing the removals or working nearby. However, it is clear that
Class II work practices are necessary to keep exposures low.

OSHA has coupled CACS removal with transite panel removal in the regulatory
provisions establishing mandatory work practices for the removal of these
materials.

Roofing Operations

The final construction standard classifies removal of roofing material which
contains asbestos as a Class II operation. As such, specific exposure
assessment and work practices must be performed. The record shows that these
work practices can be feasibly implemented and are necessary to effectively
reduce airborne asbestos levels from roofing removal projects. They consist
of continual misting of cutting machines during use, keeping roofing
materials intact during removal, using wet methods, immediately lowering
unwrapped or unbagged roofing material to a covered receptacle using a
dust-tight chute, or immediately wrapping roofing material in plastic
sheeting, and lowering it to ground by the end of the work shift.

In addition, unless the employer can demonstrate that it is not feasible,
the roof level heating and ventilation air intake and discharge sources must
be isolated, HEPA filtered, or extended beyond the regulated area, or
mechanical systems must be shut down and vents sealed with 6 mil plastic.
OSHA has taken into account concerns that isolating air intakes may cause
heat build-up in the building (Ex. 7-7). As for all Class II work,
respirators must be worn if material cannot be removed in an intact state, or
if wet methods are not used. In addition, regulated areas must be established
pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (e).

These provisions are similar to the conditions proposed by OSHA which would
have allowed an exemption from the proposed negative pressure enclosure
requirement providing implementation of specific control methods which would
have applied to all non-exempt removal jobs. In the proposal, the Agency
stated that it did not believe that requiring use of negative pressure
enclosures on roofs would result in more than a de minimis benefit to workers
removing roofing or to other employees in their vicinity. That the safety
hazards which might be imposed by their use on roofs would outweigh the
benefits (55 FR at 29719). The Agency proposed that employers engaged in
roofing operations take additional steps to reduce employee exposure to
asbestos. These steps included use of dust-tight chutes to lower debris from
the roof to the ground, or immediate bagging and lowering of debris rather
than dumping it from a height. Wetting would also be required where feasible
to reduce contamination. The Agency felt that these measures had been shown
to be effective in reducing employee and bystander exposures during roofing
operations.

There was general support for the exemption of roofing operations from the
NPE requirement (Ex. 7-1, 7-12, 7927, 7-36, 7-39, 7-43, 7-52, 7-95). BCTD
acknowledged that negative-pressure enclosures are infeasible for most
roofing operations. OSHA also believes that categorizing roofing removals as
Class II work is well supported by the record. Some data show exceedances of
the new PEL in roofing operations (see Ex. 9-34 QQ, cited by BCTD, Ex. 143 at
135). Other data show roofing removals, where proper work practices are
followed, generate low exposure levels, e.g., data submitted by NCRA,
collected by SRI shows many exposures were below the revised PEL, most jobs
used wet methods (Ex. 9-31A).

A health survey submitted by the BCTD showed asbestos related diseases and
deaths among roofers in the period from 1976-1989 (Ex. 119 QQ). That study is
evidence that proper protective practices are necessary to protect workers.
However, diseases resulted from past exposures both removing and installing
asbestos-containing roofing without protective requirements and do not
necessarily predict worker health from lower exposures resulting primarily
from removal work performed more protectively.

In addition participants supported required work practices (see Ex. 7-120,
7-132, 7-36). BCTD preferred adoption by OSHA of the recommendations made by
the labor representatives of ACCSH which are more rigorous than the work
practices proposed by OSHA. The additional practices would include:
establishing the entire roof as a regulated area; cutting or removing ACM
using hand methods whenever possible; equipping all powered tools with a HEPA
vacuum system or a misting device; HEPA vacuuming all loose dust left by the
sawing operation; and, isolating all roof-level air intake and discharge
sources, or shutting down all mechanical systems and sealing off all outside
vents using two layers of 6 mil polyethylene (Ex. 34). As noted above, OSHA
has adopted most of these additional work practices in the final regulations.
OSHA is not requiring the entire roof to be designated as a regulated area:
the portion to be removed may be a small part of the entire roof. The
regulated area should encompass that portion of the roof where dust and
debris from the removal is likely to accumulate.

One issue concerning required controls is whether OSHA should prohibit power
cutting on roofing materials containing asbestos. Information in the record
is inconclusive on whether power cutting usually results in higher exposure
levels than hand cutting. A representative of the National Roofing
Contractors Association (NRCA) testified that "we're finding extremely low
readings (on the power cutter); * * * it appears to us that the cutting of
the material seals the edges because of the heat of the blade of the cutter,
mixing with the asphalt" (Tr. 2427). Other data were submitted to show that
power cutting elevates asbestos fiber levels compared to hand cutting;
however OSHA believes that some of these conclusions may overstate the
results of limited experimentation. For example, one study was presented as
suggesting that power cutting elevated fiber levels over hand cutting (Ex
1-357). OSHA regards this study as not definitive. The differences in fiber
levels in the breathing zones of workers were only marginally statistically
significant, and there was another variable in the study's protocol which may
have effected the outcome. OSHA recognizes the bound nature of the asbestos
in most roofing materials, however, it also understands the physical
principles involved in cutting of these materials and that such actions
release fibers.

Because of this mixed record, OSHA concludes that no prohibition of power
cutting is called for as long as the other specified precautions including
misting are carefully followed. The standard allows power cutting, but also
requires that sections of roofing material shall be cut into the largest
pieces which can be feasibly handled for disposal pursuant to the standard.
Requiring misting of power tools in all situations except where a competent
person determines that misting may decrease safety is expected to help reduce
exposure levels from power cutting.

The general requirement that all asbestos work be performed wet, unless the
employer can demonstrate lack of feasibility applies to roofing operations. A
discussion of this provision is found above in the discussion on paragraph
(g)(1)(i)(B). As noted there, "flooding" is not required; "misting" of cut
areas is sufficient to control dust.

OSHA believes that these precautions are necessary to protect employees who
remove roofing materials against elevated exposures in normal circumstances.
The record shows, however, that elevated exposures may occur where damaged or
friable roofing material is removed. [See SRI report, recommending the use of
respirators where roofing material is "uncharacterized and aged" (Ex. 9-31A
at 20)]. Under such circumstances, the competent person's determination must
be that the normal precautions are not sufficient. Steven Phillips, counsel
to the NCRA agreed: "(w)hen you're working with uncharacterized and aged
roofing materials, that is * * * where you have no idea what the exposures
may be because you have no historical data; you haven't worked with that
particular material; * * * (there are) the normal OSHA requirements of doing
initial job site monitoring and having respirators until you have good,
reliable, job site monitoring" (Tr. 2463). In such atypical circumstances,
additional precautions, including respirator use and more extensive wetting,
will be necessary. NRCA's objection to the routine use of respirators on
roofing jobs, as recommended by BCTD, was based on its view that respirator
use on roofs often compromises worker safety, because respirators reduce
"downward visibility" of the wearer (Tr. 2463). OSHA agrees that in some
roofing conditions, limitations from wearing respirators might occur. When
respirator use is necessary because of the condition of the roofing material,
but respirators cannot be safely worn because of great heat, cold, or high
winds, etc., such roofing jobs shall not be performed until they can be done
safely. The Agency has concluded that "routine" respirator use is not
required, because as discussed above the required work practices will keep
exposures low in normal circumstances; but where historic data, experience of
the crew, or the condition of the roof indicate the possibility of higher
exposures, then respirator use is required.

Various studies which were submitted support OSHA's classification of
roofing removal as a Class II activity. They show that most measured
exposures are lower than many studies showing removal of Class I materials;
but still may be significant. In most cases levels below the new PELs can be
routinely expected with minimum controls.

SRI evaluated air monitoring reports from 79 roofing removal operations, 560
personal and 353 area samples (Ex. 9-31). All samples, except 24 were well
below the new PEL of 0.1 f/cc. Fourteen samples were collected for 30 minutes
or less (and were below the excursion limit). When the remaining sample
measurements were calculated as 8 hour time-weighted averages, they also did
not exceed the PEL. The remaining samples did not exceed 0.1 f/cc. The
contractors concluded, "there appears to be no pressing need for air
monitoring at the start of each job, negative pressure enclosures, or
wetting. However the use of half-mask respirators is recommended until the
source of the fibers in the few samples where concentrations were above 0.1
f/cc can be defined." They added that "exposure to asbestos should be
minimized until more (or better) information is available; the use of
respirators seems a prudent compromise when working with uncharacterized and
aged roofing materials."

The submission of Preston Quirk of Gobbell Hays Partners, Inc. included a
study entitled "Airborne Levels During Non-Friable Asbestos-Containing
Material (ACM) Removal" which was presented at the 1990 meeting of the
National Asbestos Council (Ex. 7-133a). One section of this study presented
the sampling measurements taken during removal of asbestos-containing roofing
felt and flashing using a wet prying and peeling technique with no enclosure.
Five area samples averaged 0.007 f/cc by PCM and 0.008 s/cm3 by TEM. Five
personal samples averaged 0.024 f/cc by PCM and 0.304 f/cc by TEM. It was
reported that the personal TEM samples had 0.124 s/cm3 of structure greater
than or equal to 5 um.

BCTD submitted a study by D. Hogue and K. Rhodes entitled "Evaluation of
Asbestos Fiber Release from Built-up Roof Removal Projects" (Ex. 34, VV) in
which roofing operations were monitored using both PCM and TEM methods of
measurement. The authors stressed the "non-scientific" nature of the study
and noted that they had measured only a limited number of samples. They
described a project involving removal of a 15% asbestos roof from a hospital
in which a several control methods were used. Area samples were taken at
"high," "medium," and "low" locations and most were measured using the PCM
method. During mechanical removal, the arithmetic mean concentration was 0.16
f/cc (not time-weighted); and during manual removal the average was 0.1 f/cc
(non-weighted). Personal samples were measured only by TEM and the 3 taken
during manual removal averaged 0.11 f/cc (also not weighted). In another
section of this report the authors describe a "Controlled removal of asbestos
containing built-up roofing materials without containment with engineering
and work practice controls and extensive sampling and analysis by
transmission electron microscopy," however, the specific engineering and work
practice controls employed are not described. Nonetheless, the resulting
measurements, both PCM and TEM, are well below the PEL except one sample in
which the TEM concentration was 0.1 s/cc.

NIOSH described an evaluation of airborne asbestos fibers during the
tear-off of an old asbestos shingle roof from a residential building (HETA
84-321-1590, Ex. 44). Seventeen personal breathing-zone samples were
collected for approximately two hours. For 5 tear-off workers the fiber
concentrations ranged from 0.04 to 0.16 f/cc, arithmetic mean 0.09 f/cc; for
two clean-up workers the fiber concentrations ranged from 0.13 to 0.16 f/cc,
arithmetic mean 0.14 f/ cc; and, for the 5 workers applying new shingles the
concentration ranged from 0.03 to 0.08 f/cc with a mean of 0.05 f/cc. In this
evaluation, NIOSH concluded that there was a hazard from exposure to airborne
asbestos fibers during the tear-off of an asbestos shingle roof and
recommended several practices to reduce worker exposure.

OSHA notes that in some cases, the author of the above studies recommend
more rigorous controls than the final standards require. Largely, this was
based on evaluations of roofing removal exposure potential based on small
numbers of TEM measurements. As stated elsewhere in this document, OSHA has
based its risk assessment, and relative exposure profiles on the results of
many studies which relied on PCM values. OSHA considered TEM in the 1986
standard and concluded that it was quite expensive and not fully validated.
More importantly, OSHA believes that the roofing studies submitted show the
relatively low levels of asbestos fibers emitted during removal work when
proper controls are used. The small number of exceedances which occurred
reflect poor work practices and "uncharacterized and aged material."

The purpose of the regulated area in the asbestos standards is to prevent
asbestos contamination of other parts of the workplace and to limit exposure
to only those specially trained employees who need to work in the area. While
OSHA does not want to shut down the entire building when asbestos work is
done on the roof, asbestos entering the ventilation system during roofing
work is clearly unacceptable. OSHA expects good judgment to be used by the
competent person in striving to achieve the intent of the standard. OSHA
requires that roof level heating and ventilation air intake sources must be
isolated. The employer would also have the option to shut down the
ventilation system and seal it with plastic. Only necessary work should be
done on the roof while asbestos materials are being removed, and the
locations of the work should be selected to minimize exposures, such as
upwind of the asbestos work. OSHA agrees that the 20 foot barrier approach
recommended by Mr. Collins (Ex. 7-52) has merit, but believes the exact
determination should be made on site, and could vary depending upon working
conditions.

OSHA concludes that removal of roofing material containing asbestos requires
the use of controls to reduce significant risk. Simple procedures will reduce
exposure levels substantially and, for the most part, will reduce levels
below the PELs. OSHA believes that it is appropriate to require specification
work practices for removal of asbestos-containing roofing material,
regardless of measure exposure levels. As discussed above, these controls
were recommended by rulemaking participants, although there was some
disagreement regarding the need for some of the controls.

The final standard requires the use of wet methods and continuously misting
cutting machines during use and loose dust left by the sawing operation is to
be HEPA vacuumed immediately. Some commenters were concerned that water could
create safety hazards, so the standard reflects that the competent person
could determine that misting the cutting machine, or other wet methods,
should not be used. If wet methods are not used the respiratory protection
provision of this standard, paragraph (h) requires that respirators be used
regardless of exposure level. This provision is based upon OSHA's finding
that dry disturbance or removal of asbestos containing material has large
potential to expose workers and is in accordance with that of EPA NESHAP.
Other controls include removing the roofing material in an intact state to
the extent feasible, immediately lower unbagged or unwrapped roofing material
to the ground via dust-tight chute, crane or hoist, or wrapping the roofing
material in plastic sheeting and lowering it to the ground, transferring
materials immediately to a closed receptacle in a manner so as to preclude
the dispersion of dust, and sealing off air intakes to the building prior to
doing any roofing removal.

OSHA concludes from the studies that exposures can go over the PEL and
create significant risk in circumstances when appropriate precautions are not
take. Consequently, they support OSHA requirement for some specific work
practices in all circumstances.

Methods of Compliance for Class III Asbestos Work

The newly revised construction and shipyard employment standards continue to
regulate exposure to employees engaged in repairing and maintaining building
components which contain previously installed asbestos containing material.
In the 1986 construction standard, most of these jobs were called
"small-scale, short-duration operations," but, as discussed above, OSHA was
instructed by the Court of Appeals to clarify the cut-offs for that
designation. Now, OSHA has determined that separate regulatory treatment of
repair and maintenance operations will not be limited by arbitrary duration
and amount-of-material-disturbed criteria. Instead, they are called "Class
III operations," and are defined as "repair and maintenance operations which
may involve intentional disturbance of ACM, including PACM" (see Green Book,
Ex. 1-183). The major difference between the newly revised repair and
maintenance definitions, is that the amount of material and/or the time the
operation takes are no longer the criteria for inclusion in the class.

The revised and expanded definitions of the various terms in the Category
III definition enhance its clarity. Since Category III includes maintenance,
repair, some renovation and other operations which disturb ACM, and PACM, a
definition of "disturb" is provided. Although "removal" activities are
designated Category I or II, the incidental cutting away of small amounts of
ACM or PACM to access mechanical or structural components for repair or
maintenance, is considered Category III.

Examples of work which are considered Category III are contained in various
studies submitted by participants to prove or disprove how risky asbestos
disturbing repair and maintenance work is. OSHA has evaluated the data from a
number of sources to estimate the degree of exposure of workers to previously
installed asbestos building material during various types of activities. Most
studies showed lower levels of exposure than Category I and II work. For
example, the Safe Building Alliance submitted a study by its consultant Price
(Ex. 151). He compiled sampling data from numerous sources including OSHA
compliance data, and obtained questionnaire information from building owners.
The questionnaires solicited information on the frequency and duration of
specific activities. These activities included, maintenance/repair of
boilers, air handling units, heat exchangers, tanks; repair/replacement of
pipe insulation including removal of small amounts of ACM; and, valve or
gasket replacement, of activities above suspended ceilings such as
connections and/or extensions for telecommunication/computer networks;
adjustment/repair of HVAC systems; and, testing/cleaning/ replacing smoker or
heat detectors. The final activities which may result in ACM contact such as
repairing/replacing lighting fixtures and replacing ceiling tiles. The data
were used to calculate potential exposure hours (PEH) which is the product of
the annual frequency of an activity and the duration of that activity in
hours. For all activities in all buildings in the data set, Price calculated
a PEH of 91 hours per year and a PEH per worker of 19 hours per year per
worker. Eight-hour time weighted averages were also reported as presented in
Table III.

Table III. -- Asbestos Fiber Levels During Maintenance Activities

[Ex. 151]

Location of activity

8-hour TWA

Median PEH

PEH/ worker

Above ceilings

0.029

13

5

In utility spaces

0.031

13

2

Other

0.018

6

< 1

OSHA data

0.027

All activities

74

19

Price concluded that small-scale, short duration activities take up a
relatively small proportion of a typical worker's time in that in 80% of the
buildings he studied, less than 22% of total time is spent on these
activities in a year, and that "on a per worker basis, in 80 percent of the
buildings the number of potential exposure hours total slightly less than 4
percent of a work year" (Ex. 151, Appendix A, p. 12).

OSHA notes that BCTD objected to various aspects of the Price study in its
post-hearing brief (Ex. 143) and concluded that the study "demonstrated that
in some buildings exposure hours can be very high * * *" (Ex. 143, p. 112).
However, OSHA views the study as supporting its view that when properly
controlled, most kinds of routine maintenance involving ACM results in low
exposure levels.

A recent study by Kaselaan and d'Angelo Associates for Real Estate's
Environmental Action League in 1991 was reviewed (Ex. 123). The contractors
looked at historical data from 5 commercial buildings in which the activities
sampled were reported as "small-scale, short duration." The operations were
performed "almost exclusively" within mini-enclosures and most were performed
by "trained and experienced asbestos abatement workers, who are more used to
the larger full-scale asbestos abatement procedures" and not by building
maintenance workers. The data are summarized in Table IV.

The authors also pointed out that because air monitoring and third party
oversight during these activities, they probably represented situations in
which proper precautions were taken. They concluded that "the data presented
indicates the necessity of controlling asbestos exposure during the type of
[small-scale, short duration] activities represented in this study. However
if appropriately performed * * * exposures well below the current OSHA
exposure limits can be maintained" (Ex. 123, p. 26).

OSHA also notes that although exposures ranges above the PEL for some
activities, mean levels were, in most case, much lower.

Dr. Morton Corn of Johns Hopkins University submitted summaries of
monitoring results from samples taken during a variety of operation and
maintenance activities from 5 buildings (Ex. 162-52). The 8-hour time-
weighted averages of the personal samples for each building are presented in
the Table VI.

The report contained limited information as to specific controls in place
during the sampling periods; however, Dr. Corn stated that "* * * the
controls for the 5 buildings were minimal O&M controls" (Ex. 162-52).

The submission of Mr. Saul, Assistant Commissioner for Occupational Safety
and Health, State of Maryland included a summary of the monitoring results
conducted for Maryland employees performing building maintenance activities
(ex. 162-44). A total of 207 samples analyzed by PCM during May 1988 to June
1990 were analyzed. The real-time values fell into the exposure categories
presented in Table VI.

Table VII. -- Asbestos Fiber Levels During Maintenance Activities

Fibers/cubic centimeter

No. samples

Percent of samples

<0.01

125

60.4

0.01-0.04

30

14.5

0.05-0.09

24

11.6

0.10-0.20

24

11.6

>0.20

4

1.9

During these activities, workers were required to wear personal protective
equipment. In his discussion of the study results, Mr. Saul explained that
the four values in excess of 0.2 f/cc resulted from: a removal in which wet
methods could not be employed, wetting painted surfaces, removing and wetting
metal enclosed pipe lagging, and improperly sealing of a mini-enclosure. He
further concluded that these data indicate that the work practices used by
these workers are generally effective during these maintenance-type asbestos
activities.

In addition to the above studies showing relatively low exposures, almost
all below the revised PELs, other submissions showed the potential for Class
III work to exceed the PEL.

BCTD submitted studies including those by Keyes and Chesson which reported
results of a series of experiments designed to determine fiber levels in
asbestos-containing buildings during simulated activities (Ex.9-34 OO, PP and
7-53). They demonstrated (using transmission electron microscopic
measurements) that use of dry methods in a room containing damaged ACM and
visible dust and debris elevated the fiber level in air significantly, that
physical activity (playing ball) within such an area increased fiber levels
and that cable pulling activities also raised fiber counts.

HEI submitted an analysis of a data set provided to them by Hygienetics,
Inc. which contained data on airborne asbestos fiber concentrations during
various maintenance activities performed under an operations and maintenance
(O&M) program in a large U.S. hospital (Ex. 162-6). During the period of
study, all maintenance work in areas with ACM in the hospital required a
permit issued by the Hygienetics project manager on site. The authors
concluded "* * * spatial and temporal proximity to maintenance work was an
important determinate of PCM fiber levels" (Ex. 1-344, p. 1.8). Jobs
involving removal of ACM resulted in higher fiber levels than non-removal
jobs [personal samples: mean, removal jobs = 0.166 f/cc, non-removal = 0.0897
f/cc (Ex. 1-344 p. 1.6)]. HEI concluded that these activities resulted in
increased fiber levels (Ex. 1-344, p. 1.8).

OSHA has reviewed and evaluated all available information pertaining to
maintenance, repair, and other asbestos-disturbing activities within
buildings classified as "Class III" and has concluded that some of these
activities can result in significant risk from exposure of workers. The range
of activities and exposure potential encompassed by a Class III designation
is wide.

The studies generally show that when protective work practices are used by
trained workers, exposures are greatly reduced. Thus, OSHA is requiring
various work practices and protective measures to reduce exposure to asbestos
containing material (or material which is presumed to contain asbestos) and
that workers must receive training in courses which include the appropriate
techniques to use in handling and/or avoiding such disturbances. OSHA
concludes that these are effective, feasible controls needed to reduce
significant risk.

Paragraph (g)(8) sets out these requirements. Again, wet methods are
required; local exhaust ventilation is required, if feasible; Where the
material OSHA has found to be of high-risk, TSI and surfacing material, is
drilled, cut, abraded, sanded, chipped, broken or sawed, dropcloths and
isolation methods such as mini-enclosures or glove bags must be used; and
respirators must be worn; and where a negative exposure assessment has not
been produced, dropcloths and plastic barriers (tenting or equivalent) must
be used. OSHA believes these mandatory practices will protect employees who
perform Class III work from significant risk of asbestos-related effects.

Class IV Work

As defined in paragraph (b), Class IV work consists of "maintenance and
custodial work" where employees contact ACM and PACM, including activities to
clean up waste and debris containing ACM and PACM. Examples of such work are
sweeping, mopping, dusting, cleaning, and vacuuming of asbestos containing
materials such as resilient flooring, or any surface where
asbestos-containing dust has accumulated; stripping and buffing of asbestos
containing resilient flooring, and clean-up after Class I, II, and III work,
or other asbestos construction work such as the installation of new
asbestos-containing materials. Clean-up of waste and debris during a removal
job, or other Class job, is Class IV work. Because in these cases the
employee doing the clean-up is within the regulated area and subject to the
same exposure conditions as the employees actually doing the removal,
paragraph (9)(1) requires the custodial employee to be provided with the same
respiratory protection as the employees performing the removal or other
asbestos work.

Generally, exposures for Class IV work are lower than for other classes.
Data in the record show this general exposure profile (see for example,
Kominsky study, Ex. 119 I, where carpet "naturally contaminated" for year by
friable, TSI and surfacing ACM was cleaned using three cleaning methods; all
personal samples were below 0.022 f/ cc; using allowable methods resulted in
the highest personal sample of 0.019 f/cc; see also, data in Ex. 162-52).
Other data show even lower exposures for custodial work (see for example,
Wickman et al, Ex. L163, where the authors conclude: "This study determined
that custodians who performed routine activities in buildings which contained
friable asbestos materials were not exposed to levels of airborne asbestos
which approached the OSHA action level of 0.1 f/cc. The arithmetic mean value
for 38 personal samples, analyzed by TEM, was 0.0009 s/cc, 8 hour TWA for
structure lengths greater than 5 um" ( Id at 20). The much higher exposure
data from the earlier Sawyer study, (Ex. 84-262A), showed exposure levels
ranging to 4.0 f/cc for dry dusting of bookshelves under friable ACM. As
noted above, at this rulemaking hearing Sawyer noted that the conditions in
the building he studied were unrepresentative of other buildings in the U.S.
(Tr. 2157).

OSHA believes the Wickman report is the most complete study available
concerning custodial exposures. Because the study was submitted into the
record after the close of the post-hearing comment periods, OSHA is not
relying on it to prove the extent of exposures anticipated in most custodial
work. Rather, OSHA views the Wickman study as confirming its view that Class
IV activities result in reduced exposure and thus, reduced risk compared to
activities of other classes. Because maintenance work involving active
"disturbances" is Class III work, the "contact" with ACM which constitutes
Class IV work will be either with intact materials, or in cleaning-up debris
from friable material or from material which has been disturbed. The latter
activities present the higher risk potential. OSHA acknowledges that evidence
of asbestos disease among school custodians and maintenance workers has been
submitted to this record (See e.g., references cited in SEIU's post hearing
brief, Ex. 144). The Agency believes that significant exposures to custodians
result from Class III work or when they clean up accumulations of friable
material. Therefore, these revisions contain several requirements aimed at
reducing custodial exposures when cleaning up asbestos debris and waste
material.

OSHA believes that the work practices and precautions prescribed in these
regulations will virtually eliminate significant health risks for custodial
workers, and will cure any confusion about which protections and which
standards will apply to custodial worker (see submission of SEIU, Ex. 144).

Custodial work is covered in all three standards. Housekeeping provisions in
the general industry standard, paragraph (k), cover custodians in public and
commercial buildings, in manufacturing and other industrial facilities, where
construction activity is not taking place. To avoid confusion, and to cover
clean-up, and other housekeeping on construction sites, which properly is
covered under the construction standard, similar "housekeeping" provisions
are included in the construction and shipyard standards as well (Paragraph
(1). These housekeeping provisions are discussed separately. The specific
provisions in paragraph (g), relating to Class IV work in the construction
standard relate to construction work only, and are not necessarily limited to
housekeeping. Like all other construction work, competent person supervision
of Class IV work is required, exposure assessments of clean-up of waste and
debris, and use of HEPA filtered vacuums, in paragraph (g)(1) apply.

Particular requirements were adopted in response to concerns of some
participants. These are paragraph (g)(9) which requires specific awareness
training for Class IV workers. Under the 1986 standard, training was not
required unless employees were exposed above the action level, then 0.1 f/cc.
Two labor organizations representing employees who perform Class IV work,
SEIU and AFSCME, and other participants, (see e.g., Ex. 141, 144), noted that
custodial workers needed training, separate from other building service
workers, such as maintenance workers (Ex. 141 at 49), generally referred to
as "awareness training." The record shows the lack of awareness that material
contained asbestos contributed to asbestosis (Tr. 959 ff). Paragraph (g)(9)
of the construction and shipyard standards requires that Class IV asbestos
jobs be performed by employees trained according to the awareness training
set out in the training section, (k)(8). The general industry standard, also
requires that employees who work in areas where ACM or PACM is present, also
be so trained, in paragraph (j).

In addition, paragraph (g) requires employees cleaning up waste and debris
in a regulated area where respirators are required to be worn to also wear
respirators. This restatement of the provision in paragraph (e)(4) relating
to regulated areas emphasizes that clean-up workers in large-scale jobs must
wear respirators, even though the actual removal is completed. Paragraph
(g)(g)(iv) offers significant protection to custodians. As pointed out by
participants, custodians have swept up "insulation debris which had fallen to
the floor because it was so badly deteriorated * * * with no knowledge or
concern about asbestos hazards * * *" (see testimony of Ervin Arp at Tr.
962-969). This new provision requires that "(e)mployees cleaning up waste and
debris in an area where friable TSI and surfacing ACM is accessible, shall
assume that such waste and debris contains high-risk ACM. Since paragraph (k)
requires that such ACM and PACM be visibly labeled, OSHA believes that
custodial workers will be spared the consequences of being required to
clean-up unidentified materials, which in fact contain asbestos.

Various participants asked OSHA to require an employer to adopt and
operations and management (O&M) program to protect custodial and maintenance
workers. The Agency notes that the 1986 standard contained, in non-mandatory
Appendix G, such a program, which listed precautionary actions which the
Agency recommended.

OSHA has not adopted an explicit O&M program requirement in these standards.
Rather, the Agency has adopted enforceable provisions which cover the major
elements of the previous non-mandatory program in the appendix, and of
various programs suggested by participants in this rulemaking. For example,
the new requirement that maintenance and custodial work be the subject of
exposure assessments, [see paragraph (f)(2)], requires the competent person
to evaluate operations which may expose employees to asbestos, in order to
minimize exposure. The requirement is "operation" based; rather than, as in
an O&M program, status-based. However, any active disturbance constitutes an
operation. Although each "operation" must be covered by an exposure
assessment, operations can be grouped. Cleaning up debris in an area
containing deteriorating ACM on a daily basis, need not be evaluated each
day. An assessment of such activity can be made on a general basis, covering
procedures for wet sweeping and vacuuming, disposal, and instructions to
detect deterioration of material which contributes to the debris.
Additionally, labeling of ACM and PACM usually considered part of an O&M
program, is separately required, as is training of custodial workers.
Specific jobs may require specific instructions; the breadth of some are
indicated by O&M documents generated by the EPA "Green Book" (Ex. 1-183, EPA
20T-2003, July 1990 and NIBS Ex. 1-371). OSHA believes that competent person
supervision of activities under this standard will provide appropriate work
practices to be followed for relatively small, less hazardous exposure
situations. The Agency is requiring however, in the training provisions, that
when Class III and IV workers are trained, that the contents of the EPA or
state approved courses for such workers, as the relate to the work to be
performed, be part of the required training material [paragraph (k)(v)(D)].

The issue of passive exposure, that is where active contact or disturbance
of ACM is not a contributing factor to asbestos fiber release, is covered by
the various notification and identification provisions in the standard which
will allow employees to identify asbestos-containing material. These are
discussed later in this preamble.

In OSHA's expert view, these provisions constitute major components of
operations and maintenance programs recommended; are aimed at the more
significant sources of exposure for custodial workers, and most importantly,
are enforceable. For all these reasons, OSHA believes an explicit requirement
for an O&M program, such as suggested by AFSCME (Ex. 141 at 36), would add
little benefit to employee health (see e.g., Tr.3500).

In each standard, OSHA is requiring specific work practices and a choice of
engineering control however, OSHA is aware that some asbestos control systems
may be patented. OSHA has not considered the existence of patents or their
validity in evaluating the need for those controls. OSHA believes that all
employers will have a variety of controls available to them and that new
types could be developed.

(8) Respiratory Protection

Paragraph (g) General Industry

The 1986 general industry standard required respirator use where engineering
and work practice controls are being installed, in emergencies, and to reduce
exposures to or below the PELs where feasible engineering controls and work
practices could not achieve these reductions. Additionally, certain
operations i.e., cutting in plants, were shown to have greater difficulties
in achieving low exposures without respirator use. OSHA therefore allowed
routine respirator use in those segments to reach the PELS, rather than, as
in other general industry segments, only where the employer shows that
feasible engineering and work practice controls cannot achieve compliance
with the PELs. OSHA now believes that engineering and work practices in the
few remaining production sectors can achieve lower levels than predicted in
1986, in part because of the mandatory work practices now included in the
methods of compliance section. Therefore, allowing respirator use at higher
measured exposures for a few operations should not result in less protection
for those employees since their ambient exposure levels are expected to be
reduced.

Paragraph (h) Construction Standard and Shipyard Employment
Standard. The respirator provisions in the construction and shipyard
employment standards are changed in several respects. First, in addition to
the conditions listed in the 1986 standards, where exposures exceed the PELs,
required respirator use now is triggered by kinds of activities even where
the PELs are not exceeded. These are: Class I work, Class II work where the
ACM is not removed substantially intact; all Class II and III work where the
employer cannot produce a negative exposure assessment; and all Class IV work
carried out in areas where respirators are required to be worn. OSHA has
based these decisions on the demonstrated variability during asbestos work,
and on the need to protect workers who are disturbing asbestos-containing
material with the greatest potential for significant fiber release. In
addition, monitoring results for many jobs are not available in a timely
fashion. By requiring routine respirator use in jobs which OSHA finds are
likely to result in hazardous airborne asbestos levels, such as floor tile
removal, where most tiles are broken, OSHA is providing reasonable
supplemental protection to employees when certainty concerning exposure
levels is not possible.

The kind of respirators required for these "conditions of use" are set out
in paragraphs (h)(iv) and (v). In one situation, as explained below, Class I
removals where excessive levels are predicted, "supplied air respirators
operated in the positive pressure mode" are required, because these jobs have
the highest exposure potential, due to their size, duration and the kinds of
material involved. Other jobs where higher than usual exposures may occur
include, where employees are inexperienced, where TSI and surfacing ACM is
disturbed, and where other ACM is broken up during removal. Paragraph (h)(1)
states the requirement for supplemental respirator use for these activities
as well. These additional respirator requirements conform to OSHA's findings
on this record, of the specific conditions which contribute to and are
predictive of, higher exposures.

As discussed more fully in the classification section, the data submitted to
the record show that in almost all cases of removals and disturbances of
non-high-risk ACM, exposure levels are well below the protection factor
limits for negative-pressure half-mask respirators, the type required for
certain kinds of Class II and III work.

BCTD has recommended that OSHA require the use of "the most effective
respirator that is feasible under the circumstances" and further that OSHA
require "supplied air respirators which are tight fitting and in a pressure
demand mode with either auxiliary SCBA or a HEPA egress cartridge * * *
except in limited circumstances which include lack of feasibility because of
the configuration of the work environment or an uncorrectable safety hazard"
(Ex. 143 at 65-69). BCTD does recognize safety hazards due to the tripping
hazard of air lines to which SARs are attached and define certain activities
in which PAPRs may be used instead. (Ex. 143 at 71). BCTD also contended that
the protection factors used by OSHA to assign respirator classes are contrary
to record evidence.

The Court found that OSHA's judgment about supplied air respirators was
properly within its discretion. It expressed concern that OSHA's respirator
requirements did appear to require only that the combined effect of
engineering and work practice controls and respirators limit exposure only as
low as the PEL where significant risk remained (838 F.2d at 1274).

OSHA responded to these issues in a Federal Register publication of 5
February 1990 (55 FR 3727), in which the Agency reaffirmed its position
concerning effectiveness levels of respirators, pointed out flaws in studies
BCTD used to conclude that protection factors are inadequate, and noted that
OSHA is revising and updating its general respirator standard. OSHA also
noted that implementation of the entire respirator program would result in
exposures below the PEL. That was OSHA's final statement of position on these
issues and it was not judicially challenged.

In evaluating the respiratory protection needs dictated by the new system of
ranking for asbestos operations by "class," OSHA has concluded that there are
circumstances in which the highest level of respiratory protection must be
used. These are Class I jobs for which a negative exposure assessment (i.e.
exposures will be less than the PEL) has not been made. Inexperienced workers
removing large amounts of TSI or surfacing ACM are at the high end of the
risk spectrum and must have additional protection afforded by the supplied
air respirator. OSHA notes that joint EPA-NIOSH recommendations would require
a supplied air respirator in even more extensive circumstances, i.e., all
"abatement" work and maintenance and some repair work (EPA/NIOSH Guide,
referenced at Ex. 143, p. 69). The Agency"s decision balances the acknowledge
potential safety hazards of supplied air respirators with the need for more
protection in the most risky asbestos jobs. The Court of Appeals has agreed
that such judgments are properly within the discretion of the Agency (858 F2d
at 1274). In situations where the competent person makes a determination that
exposures in Class I jobs will be less than the PELs, the standard requires
that a half-mask air purifying, non-disposable respirator equipped with a
high efficiency filter must be used. There are two reasons for this
requirement: exposures less than the PEL have been determined to result in
significant risk, the record shows that Class I work may result in
substantial exposures even when good conditions exist, and the variability
usually results in some high exposures. However, although all classes of
asbestos work are potentially risky, OSHA has used discretion, and has
limited the supplied air respirator provision to the highest risk situations,
Class I work where it cannot be predicted that exposures will not exceed the
PEL. This approach does not leave workers doing other classes of work
unprotected. The respirator selection Table D-4, applies to all situations
other than Class I work. As the worker(s) gain experience in the use of
control methodology, and data accrues documenting low fiber levels, use of
less protective respirators may be allowed.

Furthermore, OSHA has based this conclusion on the demonstrated variability
of exposures in the construction industry (Ex. 143, p. 63, CONSAD report p.
2.18, Tr. 2156, 2157, Tr. 4571, Ex. 7-57). The contractor Consad reported
"while many of the construction jobs monitored did not produce exposure
levels above the proposed PEL of 0. 1 f/cc, these data also provide continued
evidence that exposure levels can be highly variable in construction work and
can exceed the proposed PEL * * * for many of the construction activities
examined here" (Ex. 8, 2.18-20).

Shipyard Employment Standard

Paragraph (h). SESAC has recommended the deletion of the qualitative fit
test from the shipyard employment asbestos standard. Their rationale is as
follows:

The Committee has determined that advances in quantitative fit testing
instrumentation have made this procedure accessible to shipyards conducting
asbestos operations at a cost which is not overly burdensome ($5,000-6,000 at
the low end). Because quantitative fit testing provides a better evaluation
of fit among respirators than qualitative methods, and does not rely on
subjective determination by the employees, qualitative fit testing methods
have been deleted as acceptable alternatives * * * (Ex. 7-77).

They further recommended, based on the recent developments in technology
that the use of test chambers, and the requirement for use of aerosols be
deleted. They also offered an additional definition: "challenge agent" means
the air contaminant, or parameter, which is measured for comparison inside
and outside of the respirator facepiece." These are reasonable suggestions,
but as they have general application outside shipyards, OSHA indicated this
in its notice of February 5, 1990 in its partial response to the Court. The
Agency is "still planning to revise and update its general respiratory
standard, and believes that continuing to enforce the current asbestos
respirator requirements during this interim period will not expose employees
to unnecessary risk" (55 FR 3728, February 5, 1990). Therefore, OSHA will not
delete the qualitative fit test from the asbestos standard(s), but will
consider the issue in the context of the general respiratory standard.

SESAC objected to the requirement that a powered, air-purifying respirator
be supplied in lieu of a negative-pressure respirator when the employee
chooses it and when it will provide adequate protection. They felt that the
employer should be allowed to provide an airline respirator or powered
air-purifying respirator. They reasoned that most employers already will have
airline respirators in stock and will not need to purchase or maintain any
other type of respirator. In evaluating similar comments in the rulemaking
for the 1986 revised asbestos rule, OSHA stated:

OSHA agrees that positive-pressure supplied-air respirators provide a
greater level of protection than do half-mask negative-pressure respirators.
OSHA believes that employers should have the flexibility to use any of the
available respirators that provide sufficient protection to reduce the
exposures to levels below the PEL. Furthermore, the safety problems
associated with the use of supplied-air respirators cannot be ignored. OSHA
believes that respirators should be selected that both provide adequate
protection from exposure to airborne asbestos fibers and minimize the risk of
accident and injury potentially caused by the use of cumbersome supplied-air
respirators (51 FR p. 22719, June 20, 1986, p. 22719).

After that rulemaking, BCTD challenged OSHA's refusal to make air supplied
respirators mandatory. The Court accepted OSHA's explanation -- that
supplied-air respirators had hazards of its own, and stated "this sort of
judgment * * * (is) within OSHA's discretion in the absence of evidence
supporting the view that the incremental asbestos safety gains plainly exceed
the incremental non-asbestos hazards" (838 F.2d at 1274). OSHA reiterated
these reasons in its January 28, 1990 response to the Court's remand.

As discussed above, OSHA has determined on this record that supplied air
respirators are required for Class I work where a negative exposure
assessment is not forthcoming, but not for other Class I work. Therefore,
shipyard employees doing the most hazardous work must wear this most
protective respirator as well.

(9) Protective Clothing

Paragraph (h) General Industry. OSHA is making no changes in the protective
clothing provisions for general industry. Paragraph (i) Construction and
Shipyard Standards.

There are several protective clothing issues in this rulemaking. The first
issue involves the impact of the Class system on the personal protective
clothing provisions. The existing standard requires that protective clothing
be provided and worn when exposures exceed the PEL. The revised standards
maintain this requirement. In addition, the revised standards require the use
of personal protective clothing when Class I work is performed and when Class
III work involving TSI and surfacing ACM is performed in the absence of a
negative exposure assessment. OSHA believes that this change brings the
standard in line with OSHA's 1986 intentions wherein the Agency believed that
removal of thermal insulation and surfacing materials would result in
exposures that exceed the PEL. This rulemaking record shows that some
employers have developed control strategies that can reduce exposures below
the PELs, for most of the time. However, as previously discussed, work with
high-risk materials has substantial potential for over-exposure. Furthermore,
studies have documented that in the past workers have brought asbestos
contaminated clothing home with them and thereby caused exposure and
asbestos-related disease among family members. OSHA believes that this
standard must prevent such conditions, and the nature of Class I work and
Class III work with high risk materials merits special consideration. Nearly
all rulemaking participants agree on this point.

OSHA notes however, that the judgment to require protective clothing for
asbestos work is a subjective one, to some extent, requiring judgment on the
part of the competent person. The hazard from asbestos is associated with
inhalation of fibers that are in the air, not from asbestos that comes in
contact with the skin, like some other chemical that OSHA has regulated (such
as methylenedianiline and benzene), which are absorbed through the skin and
are systemic toxins. Asbestos fibers that are on clothing can become
airborne, so OSHA continues to believe that situations where airborne fiber
levels are high are also those which are likely to contaminate clothing.
Therefore, the regulation continues the requirement for protective clothing
and its proper disposal/cleaning. OSHA does not believe, however, that
protective clothing is required for every operation involving asbestos.

In the 1986 standards OSHA did not require that protective clothing be
impermeable; in fact, OSHA responded to concerns that disposable clothing
which was impermeable not be permitted because it was claimed to contribute
to heat stress (see discussion at 51 FR 22722). Although the issue was not
remanded to OSHA by the Court, several participants in the current rulemaking
focused comment on the issue of whether OSHA should require work clothing
during asbestos work be impermeable to asbestos fibers in each of its
asbestos standards. Most of those who addressed the issue expressed support
for having such a requirement (Exs. 7-10, 7-67, 7-69, 7-138, 7-192, 7-195,
1-242, Tr. 1122, 1142, 1950, 3003 and 3156). It should also be noted that
several of these commenters were manufacturers of such fabric or clothing.
They also encouraged OSHA to set a requirement that all garments meet the
requirements of the ANSI standard 101-1985.

Charles Salzenberg of Dupont presented a study which was performed at their
behest by A.D. Little which indicated that neither shampooing the hair nor
showering following simulated asbestos exposure completely removed fibers
from hair or skin (Ex. 76) to support their request for an impermeable
clothing requirement. In response to questioning about heat stress, he stated
that:

We've had projects for years on improving the breathability of Tyvek and in
fact we have some material that exhibits improved breathability and the
problem you always get when you get more breathability, you get more
asbestos. There doesn't seem * * * a way to have a perfect filter that keeps
out all fibrous material but lets a lot of air through * * * (Tr. 3444).

OSHA continues to believe that heat stress is also a concern in use of
protective clothing made of impervious fabric. It should again be noted that
the route of exposure of asbestos fibers which creates a health hazard is
inhalation, not skin absorption. The Agency reiterates its belief that
non-disposable work clothes provide sufficient protection provided they are
properly cleaned after work and laundered. The Agency agrees that disposable
fiber-impermeable clothing can be safely worn if "employers * * * use
appropriate work-rest regimens and provide heat stress monitoring * * *" (51
FR 22722). However, OSHA does not believe that totally impermeable clothing
is a necessary requirement for asbestos work.

(10) Hygiene Facilities and Practices

Paragraph (j) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards.

OSHA is changing the decontamination requirements in minor details to
correspond to its new system of categorizing asbestos work according to its
potential risk. The primary requirement that asbestos abatement workers be
decontaminated following their work using a 3-part system -- an equipment
room, a shower room, and a clean room, is retained. Thus, most workers
performing Class I work, removing TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM, as before,
must use a shower adjacent to and connected with the work area.

With the introduction of new provisions identifying 4 classes of asbestos
work, it is necessary that OSHA modify its requirement for hygiene facilities
and practices to reflect these changes. OSHA continues in its belief that the
requirements must be proportional to the magnitude and likelihood of asbestos
exposure. Therefore the most hazardous asbestos operations -- those involving
removal of more than threshold amounts of thermal system insulation or
sprayed-on or troweled-on surfacing materials must employ a decontamination
room adjacent to the regulated area (most often, a negative-pressure
enclosure) consisting of an equipment room, shower room, and clean room in
series through which workers must enter and exit the work area, as required
in the 1986 standard.

For Class I asbestos work, OSHA has further determined, based on its
consideration of the rulemaking record, that there are 3 exceptions to the
requirement that the shower facility be located immediately contiguous to the
work area. These include, outdoor work (See Ex. 7-21, 7-99, 7-145), shipboard
work (Ex. 7-77 and see discussion below), and situations where the employer
shows such an arrangement is infeasible. OSHA will again allow in these
limited circumstances the workers to enter the equipment room, remove
contamination from their worksuits using a portable HEPA vacuum or change to
a clean non-contaminated workclothing, and then proceed to the non-contiguous
shower area. Outdoor work affected by this requirement will occur mainly in
industrial facilities such as refineries and electrical power plants when
specified work practices are employed and following outdoor asbestos work.

OSHA intends that HEPA-vacuuming procedures be performed carefully and
completely remove any visible ACM/PACM from the surface of the worker's work
suit, including foot and head coverings, skin, hair and any material adhering
to the respirator.

Also for Class I work involving less than 10 square feet or 25 linear feet
of TSI or surfacing ACM (the thresholds referenced above), during which
exposures are unlikely to exceed the PELs for which there is a negative
exposure assessment, OSHA is allowing less burdensome decontamination
procedures which it believes are compatible with the scheme to classify
asbestos work according to risk potential. In these operation, an equipment
room or area must be set up adjacent to the work area for decontamination
use. The floor of the area/room must be covered with an impermeable (e.g.,
plastic) dropcloth and be large enough to accommodate equipment cleaning and
removal of PPE without spread of fibers beyond the area. The worker must HEPA
vacuum workclothing, hair, head covering as described above and dispose of
clothing and waste properly. Thus, only if the employer shows that for these
smaller dimension jobs that the PEL is unlikely to be exceed may the
decontamination procedure be abbreviated.

For asbestos operations which are Class II and III which are likely to
exceed the PELs and for which a negative exposure assessment is not produced,
showering is required, but may be performed in a facility which is
non-contiguous to the work area. Use of dropcloths, HEPA vacuuming of
workclothing and surfaces as above or the donning of clean workclothing prior
to moving to a non-contiguous shower is required.

Following those Class II, III and IV jobs which the employer demonstrates
are unlikely to exceed the PELs and for which a negative exposure assessment
has been produced, the worker must HEPA vacuum his clothing on an impermeable
dropcloth and perform other clean-up on the dropcloth avoiding the spread of
any contamination. However, showering is not required.

OSHA is also concerned that workers performing clean-up (Class IV work)
following larger abatement work receive appropriate decontamination.
Therefore, employees who perform Class IV work in a regulated area must
comply with the hygiene practice which the higher classification of work
being performed in the regulated area requires.

Shipyard Employment Standards; Paragraph (i)

In other comments the Shipyards Employment Standards Advisory Committee
objected to the requirement in the 1986 standard that showers be located
contiguous to the work area. They said that this was not a part of the
general industry standard and that they wished to continue to provide showers
in fixed facilities on shore; that although contiguous showers may not be
technologically infeasible, it was impractical. They further stated that
change rooms required under the general industry asbestos standard cannot be
provided on ships and that the worker must be allowed to remove contaminated
clothing in an equipment room as in the construction standard (Ex. 7-77).

The Committee suggested several specific steps to the decontamination
process required of workers following work in a shipboard asbestos activity.
According to these recommendations, the employer shall ensure that employees
who work within regulated area exit as follows:

Remove asbestos from their protective clothing using a HEPA vacuum as they
move into the equipment room;

Enter the equipment room and remove their decontaminated outer layer of
protective clothing and place them in the receptacles provided for that
purpose;

Enter the decontamination room and perform personal HEPA vacuuming;

Remove respirator after exiting decontamination room;

Wash their face and hands prior to eating or drinking;

If they are not going to make another entry into the regulated area that
day, proceed to the shower area and change room; and, Don street clothing
(Ex. 7-77).

OSHA believes these are reasonable suggestions. The final standard permits
this approach based on the flexibility permitted by the language. Those who
shower at remote facilities are required to decontaminate their protective
clothing prior to proceeding to the remote showers. The Committee also
recommended that, for the sake of modesty, the worker must be allowed to
continue to wear the underwear which he had worn under his protective
clothing during the process of decontaminating his clothing -- removing them
when entering the shower. The 1986 standards are silent on this point and it
seems reasonable that persons would be allowed to continue to wear his/her
underwear during HEPA vacuuming and removal of protective clothing.

The committee pointed out that the general industry standard requires
lunchrooms, while the construction standard requires lunch areas, and that
areas were sufficient. OSHA agrees that it is unnecessary to build lunchrooms
in shipyard facilities, so long as the area provided for food consumption is
not so close to the work area that asbestos contamination is likely. In that
case, areas are insufficient and an enclosed room must be provided which is
free of contamination.

The "communication of hazards" provisions of the standards contain many
revisions. The Court in 1988 had remanded two information transfer issues for
OSHA's reconsideration. These were to extend the reporting and information
transfer requirements and to require construction employers to notify OSHA of
asbestos work. As discussed earlier, OSHA has decided not to require general
pre-job notification to the Agency. However, the Agency has expanded required
notifications among owners, employers and employees. Basically, the general
industry standard has been upgraded to the more extensive notification
requirements of the construction standard and the shipyard employment
standards. Consequently this preamble section discusses the issues together.
In the shipyard standard the "building owner" may be a vessel owner or a
building owner. OSHA notes that in shipyards vessels undergoing repair may be
owned by foreign entities, as well as by entities subject to the Act's
jurisdiction. When a foreign-owned vessel is repaired in an American
shipyard, the employer (either the shipyard or an outside contractor) must
either treat materials defined as PACM as asbestos-containing or sample the
suspect material and analyze it to determine whether or not it contains
asbestos.

An overview of these revisions follows. The construction and shipyard
standards now require that employers who discover the presence of material
which is ACM or is presumed ACM (PACM) on the worksite, must notify the
project or building owner. On worksites having multi-employers, the person
who discovers the material also is to notify the other employers. An employer
on a multi-employer worksite who is planning Class I or Class II asbestos
work is to inform all the other employers on the site of the presence of ACM
to which employees of those employers might reasonably be expected to be
exposed. They are to be informed of the location and quantity of these
materials and the measures to be taken to protect them from exposure.

The 1986 construction standard required employers to notify other employers
on multi-employer worksites of the existence and location of asbestos work,
but was silent on the notification role of building owners. OSHA was
concerned that building owners were "outside the domain of the OSH Act." As
noted above, this is a specific issue remanded for reconsideration by the
Court of Appeals. Now, upon reconsideration, OSHA believes that it has
authority to require building owners [as defined in paragraph (b)] who are
statutory employers, to take necessary and appropriate action to protect
employees other than their own. In the 1990 proposal OSHA pointed to other
standards in which it has required building owners and other employers who
are not the direct employers of the employees exposed to particular hazards,
to warn of defects, take remedial action, or provide information to the
directly employing employer. It cited the Hazard Communication Standard's
requirement that manufacturers provide information to downstream employers
(29 CFR 1910.1200) and the Powered Platform standard which requires the
building owner to assure the contract employer that the building and
equipment conform to specified design criteria as examples (29 CFR
1910.66(c).) OSHA believes that the building or project owner is the best and
often the only source of information concerning the location of asbestos
installed in structures; therefore, OSHA is requiring the owner to receive,
maintain, and communicate knowledge of the location and amount of ACM or PACM
to employers of employees who may be exposed. OSHA acknowledges that in
shipyards, foreign vessel owners are not "statutory employers" and thus, are
not covered by these standards. In such cases, the employer performing the
"refit" must either presume that TSI and surfacing material are
asbestos-containing, or have the material tested. When turn-around time must
be minimized, the case in many overhauls, OSHA expects that the jobs will be
performed in conformity with this standard without testing.

The final rule provides a comprehensive notification scheme for affected
parties -- building owners, contract employers and employees, which will
assure that information concerning the presence, location, and quantity of
ACM or PACM in buildings is communicated in a timely manner to protect
employees who work with or in the vicinity of such materials. Before Class I,
II, or III work is initiated, building and/ or project owners must notify
their own employees and employers who are bidding on such work, of the
quantity and location of ACM and PACM present in such areas. Owners also must
notify their own employees who work in or adjacent to such jobs.

Employers, who are not owners, planning any such covered activity must
notify the owner of the location and quantity of ACM and PACM known or later
discovered. The building owner must keep records of all information received
through this notification scheme, or through other means, which relates to
the presence, location and quantity of ACM and PACM in the owner's
building/project or vessel and transfer all such information to successive
owners. OSHA reaffirms its finding of the 1986 standard that an employee's
presence in the workplace places him at increased risk from asbestos exposure
regardless of whether he/she is actually working with asbestos or is just in
the vicinity of such material.

OSHA has defined "building owner" to include these lessees who control the
management and recordkeeping functions of a building / facility/vessel. It is
not OSHA's intention to exempt the owner from notification requirements by
allowing a lessee to comply. Rather when the owner has transferred the
management of the building to a long-term lessee, that lessee is the more
appropriate party to receive, transmit, and retain information about in-place
asbestos. When a lease has expired, any records in the lessee's possession
must be transferred to the owner or the subsequent lessee exercising similar
managerial authority. The expanded notification provisions also require that
on multi-employer worksites, any employer planning to perform work which will
be in a regulated area, before starting, must notify the building owner of
the location of the ACM and the protective measures taken; upon discovering
unexpected ACM, they must provide similar notification; and, upon work
completion they must provide to the owner a written record of the remaining
ACM at the site.

OSHA has included a provision that within 10 days of the completion of Class
I or II asbestos work, the employer of the employees who performed the work
shall inform the owner and employers of employees who will be working in the
area of the current location and quantity of PACM and/or ACM remaining in the
former regulated area and shall also inform him/her of the final monitoring
results taken in that operation. OSHA has determined that the employer of
employees reoccupying the area must have this information in order to provide
the appropriate protection to his/her workers.

To provide effective notification in Class III asbestos operations, OSHA is
building upon its earlier requirement to post warning signs in regulated
areas. Now since all Class III work must be conducted in a regulated area all
maintenance-type operations will be posted with signs, which state the fact
that asbestos exposing activities are present. OSHA considers site posting to
be a particularly effective means to alert employees of hazardous areas where
relatively short-term repair and maintenance activities are taking place.
OSHA believes that site posting will adequately notify potentially affected
employees who are not working on the operation, but are working within the
area or adjacent to it.

Identification of Asbestos-containing Materials in Buildings and Facilities

In addition to the "notification" issues just discussed, OSHA addresses a
related widespread concern expressed by participants in this rulemaking: how
to ensure that workers in buildings and facilities with previously installed
asbestos containing products, are not exposed to asbestos fibers merely
because they have no knowledge of where such products were installed. OSHA
has found that such workers, primarily maintenance workers and custodians,
but also contract workers such as plumbers, carpenters and sheet metal
workers and workers in industrial facilities have shown historic disease
patterns which in large part resulted from exposure to previously installed
asbestos. (see discussions elsewhere in this preamble of data submitted by
BCTD, AFSCME, SEIU and others). In its 1990 proposal OSHA raised the issue of
how to identify previously installed asbestos and asked for comments and
recommendations (55 FR 29730). OSHA opened the record for supplemental
comments in November 1992, in a notice which also set out OSHA's preliminary
views on how to effectively protect workers from unknowing exposure to
previously installed ACM (57 FR 49657). There, OSHA proposed to require
employers to presumptively identify certain widely prevalent and more risky
materials. These are thermal system insulation, and sprayed-on and
troweled-on surfacing materials, in buildings built between 1920 and 1980.
These materials were to be termed "presumed asbestos containing materials"
(PACM) and were to be treated as asbestos containing for all purposes of the
standard. OSHA would have allowed building owners and employers to rebut
these presumptions using building records and/or bulk sampling.

The final provisions which are included in all three standards, like OSHA's
1992 approach, require building owners and employers to presume that thermal
system insulation (TSI) and sprayed-on and troweled-on surfacing materials
contain asbestos, unless rebutted pursuant to the criteria in the standard.
Additionally, OSHA is requiring in its mandatory work practices for flooring
material containing asbestos, that employers assume that resilient flooring
material consisting of vinyl sheeting, and vinyl and asphalt containing tile
installed before 1980 also be presumed to contain asbestos (see discussion in
the "Methods of Compliance" section). Unlike the proposal, buildings
constructed before 1920 are not excluded from these requirements. Also
rebuttal criteria have been changed. Unlike the approach OSHA suggested in
the November, 1992 notice, building records may not be relied upon to rebut
the presumption of asbestos containing material and more detailed
instructions are supplied for the inspection process.

OSHA believes that these provisions will protect employees in buildings and
facilities from the consequences of unknowing significant exposure to
asbestos in the most cost-effective manner.

As stated in the November 1992, OSHA continues to believe that the major
advantage of such a regulatory approach is that the materials and
buildings/facilities with the greatest risk potential would be automatically
targeted for mandatory communication and control procedures, and possible
testing. Focusing on high-risk building/ facility situations avoids the
dilution of resources and attention which might result from requiring broader
inspections. Other building/ facility areas and material would not be exempt
from the standard's control requirements; however, they would not be
presumptively considered to contain asbestos. If a building owner or employer
has actual knowledge of the asbestos content of materials, they must comply
with the protective provisions in the standard. Similarly if there is good
cause to know that material is asbestos containing the employer and/or
building owner is deemed to know that fact. The current enforcement rules
governing "employer knowledge" would be applied in a contested case to
determine the application of the asbestos standard to other materials or
building/facility areas which the employer claims he did not know contained
asbestos.

OSHA believes that this presumptive approach allows building/ facility
owners whose buildings/facilities contain PACM and other employers of
employees potentially exposed to PACM flexibility to choose the most
cost-effective way to protect employees. They may treat the material as if it
contains asbestos and provide appropriate required training to the custodial
staff; test the material and rebut the presumptions; or combine strategies.

OSHA considered a number of approaches to insure that workers do not become
exposed to asbestos unknowingly. As noted in the 1992 notice, one option was
clarifying in the preamble to the final rule the current enforcement policy
that a prudent building/facility owner or other employer exercising "due
diligence" is expected to identify certain asbestos-containing materials in
his/her building/facility before disturbing them. After reviewing the record,
OSHA believes its presumption approach is more protective. "Due diligence,"
is, in part, a legal defense, invoked by and in order to shelter employers
against OSHA citation. Thus in the past, employers who were wrongly informed
by building owners about the asbestos content of thermal system insulation
successfully argued in some cases that they had exercised "due diligence."
OSHA believes that the protection of employees must not depend on the good
faith of their employers whose information sources may be defective. By
requiring that TSI and troweled- and sprayed-on surfacing material be handled
as if they contain asbestos, employees will be protected from the
consequences of their employers relying on erroneous information about the
most risky asbestos materials. Of course, "due diligence" would also require
employers to investigate whether other building material about which there
was information suggesting asbestos content, was in fact asbestos-containing.
A building owner/employer, for other materials, also may presume they are
asbestos-containing, label and treat work with them as asbestos work, without
testing the material for asbestos content.

Another option OSHA considered was requiring a comprehensive AHERA-type
(EPA's schools rule) building/facility inspection. AHERA (Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act, 40 CFR 735) requires that all school buildings be
visually inspected for asbestos-containing building materials (ACBM) by an
EPA-accredited inspector and that inventory of the locations of these
materials be maintained. Under AHERA, school maintenance and custodial staff
who may encounter ACBM in the course of their work receive at least 2 hours
of awareness training, and for staff who conduct activities which disturb
ACBM, an additional 14.

Although there was substantial support for a comprehensive inspection
requirement, OSHA believes that the regulatory approach in these final
standards will achieve equivalent or superior protection to exposed workers
at much reduced cost.

The reasons are as follows. A comprehensive wall-to-wall inspection
requirement is found to be unnecessary to protect employees against risks of
exposure from asbestos-containing building material of which they are
unaware. Such an inspection requirement would be very costly, may be overly
broad, the results may not be correct or timely, would not necessarily focus
on potential sources of asbestos exposure which present significant risks to
employees, and its great expense may divert resources from active protection
of workers who actually disturb asbestos. First, OSHA does not believe that
protecting employees in buildings from significant asbestos exposure requires
that all suspect materials in buildings first be identified. Although all
asbestos-containing materials may release fibers when their matrices are
disturbed, certain materials are known to be more easily damaged or to suffer
more deterioration, and thus cause higher airborne fiber levels than others.
As discussed in the November 1992 notice, OSHA determined that thermal system
insulation (TSI) and sprayed on and troweled on surfacing materials are such
materials. They are potentially more friable, are much more prevalent, are
more accessible and are the subject of more maintenance and repair activities
than are other asbestos containing materials. They are widely prevalent. A
1984 EPA study limited to residential, commercial and public buildings
nationally, found about three quarters of such buildings had asbestos-
containing TSI, and over one quarter of the buildings contained sprayed-on or
troweled-on asbestos containing surfacing material (see also studies cited in
the HEI Report, Ex. 1-344, p. 4-6 to 4-10). The materials are usually
accessible. Surfacing material was applied for decorative and acoustical
purposes early on, and was later applied as insulation coating to protect
structural steel during fires. The HEI Report in summarizing studies
conducted in New York, California, and Philadelphia stated that "(i)mportant
findings from these studies include the frequent use of friable surfacing in
multi-storied buildings and the high proportion of damage to thermal systems
insulation, most of which is accessible only to maintenance personnel (HEI
Report, Ex. 1-344, p. 4-8 to 10). The accessibility of thermal system
insulation is not limited to employees who directly disturb it to repair or
replace the piping and infrastructure it covers. As noted by a participant:
in industrial settings there are many sources of fiber release including
vibration (people often walk on pipes), exposure to the elements, fans and
processes, leaks, process leaks, and releases through joints in metal
cladding (Ex. 12-7, Respirable Fibers Management Consultancy, Inc.).

The data submitted to OSHA indicate that these two materials have high
exposure potential. For example, the potential of surfacing material to
become friable and result in sizable exposures was shown by the Yale
Architecture School data, which involved exposure to a "fully exposed
acoustical material," a "Spanish moss type material" of low density and high
friability (Tr. 2168). Dr. Sawyer, whose study showed very high exposures to
custodial employees from exposure to dust and debris from this material,
noted that its use in the building was unrepresentative, and that the
material usually is "used primarily as a fireproofing material on structural
steel that was concealed." (Id). Work in ceiling spaces containing sprayed
asbestos show elevated exposure levels (see e.g., studies discussed in HEI,
Ex. 1-344, p. 4-74). Data showing high exposure levels from TSI are ample and
are discussed in detail in the preamble discussion on methods of compliance.

The data in this record showing exposures to other kinds of asbestos
containing material such as gaskets, wallboard, roofing and siding materials
show that generally, exposures to these products under comparable controls
are lower than those released by the materials designated by OSHA as "high
hazard" and for which the presumption applies. The "high-hazard" materials
are much more prevalent in buildings and facilities, disturbances of them are
more common. Therefore OSHA believes that a targeted approach to presuming
the presence of high hazard previously installed asbestos containing
materials in buildings which are likely to contain them will provide
equivalent protection to potentially exposed employees than a requirement to
inspect all buildings and facilities for all asbestos containing materials.
Some building owners will continue to conduct comprehensive surveys, others,
when cost is an issue, will rely on presumptions to protect employees from
potential exposure to high-risk ACM, TSI and surfacing materials.

In addition, even an up-front inspection rule must be targeted to be
productive. Since not all facilities contain asbestos materials, an attempt
should be made to designate those facilities and buildings where it unlikely
that ACM will be found, otherwise the information yield from inspections will
be unconnected to worker protection. OSHA is using a temporal cut-off of 1980
for its presumption rule. As discussed later, this date was supported by the
record, since buildings constructed afterwards are much less likely to
contain even stockpiled asbestos containing materials. In 1975, under the
authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA banned the use of spray-applied ACM as
insulation and the use of asbestos-containing pipe lagging and in 1978
extended the ban to all uses of sprayed-on asbestos. In this regard OSHA
notes that the purpose of a cut-off is not to state a date after which it is
certain that no asbestos-containing material has been installed in buildings.
Rather, it is to designate when it becomes unlikely that asbestos-containing
materials have been used in construction. OSHA believes that 1980 is a
reasonable date for marking that probability. As noted above, employers and
building owners are still required to investigate materials installed after
1980 when they suspect they may be asbestos-containing.

As discussed above, OSHA additionally refined its presumption by recognizing
two broad categories of building materials as "high-risk" and thus that the
consequences of a false negative identification supported a such materials be
treated as asbestos-containing unless reliable information showed the absence
of asbestos. These kinds of materials are TSI and sprayed-on, troweled-on, or
otherwise applied surfacing materials. Although as noted the version of an
inspection rule urged by most proponents would require inspection for all
potential asbestos-containing materials, some participants suggested an
inspection requirement which would also concentrate on more potentially
hazardous materials first. One suggestion was to, first require inspection of
steel structures with sprayed on fireproofing constructed before 1975, next
of sprayed-on acoustic ceiling installed before 1980 (e.g., Ex. 162-27). In
the Agency's view, phasing in inspection requirements may provide less
certainty and protection than its presumption approach. Requiring a
"presumption" is an immediate source of protection. Any inspection program
takes time and significant resources. Additionally, if inspection of
categories of potentially high risk material are delayed under a
phased-in-approach, protection is denied pending the start-up date. If
judicial challenge is made employers may hold back on any inspections hoping
for a court to invalidate the requirement. Even more importantly, evidence in
the record also indicates that inspection data sometimes are not reliable. In
particular, the Westat Report which evaluated a large sample of school
inspections under AHERA, found that although on the whole inspections
identified most asbestos-containing materials, "high-risk" surfacing material
was unidentified as asbestos containing in 36% of the inspections studied
(Ex. 1-326 p. 326). Since surfacing material has been found by OSHA, based on
this record to be a high hazard material, OSHA is reluctant to rely on
inspections alone to identify it. A presumptive approach requires that
material which looks like sprayed on or troweled on surfacing material, be
handled with care, without waiting for inspections or relying on the results
of inspections which may not correctly identify it.

The Agency asked for comment on its intention to designate thermal system
insulation and sprayed-on or troweled-on surfacing material as "high-risk
material." Several of those responding to the notice felt the list was too
limited and should include all suspect materials ( Exs. 162-11, 162-16,
162-18, 162-24, 162-28, 162-33, 162-36, 162-39, 162-42, 162-44, 162-45,
162-46, 162-57). Some, suggested using the list EPA included in its "Green
Book" entitled Managing Asbestos in Place (Ex. 162-35, 162-42, 162-44).

G. Siebert of the Office of the Secretary of Defense offered an alternate
plan -- a tiered approach in which thermal system insulation and sprayed-on
or troweled-on surfacing materials would be considered high-risk PACM and
would be labeled and notification carried out: other material which may
contain asbestos (Ex. 162-13). He suggested that other material, should be
handled as ACM unless sampling indicates that it does not contain asbestos,
but that it not be required to be labeled.

As suggested, OSHA considered extending its presumption requirement to other
kinds of building materials which may contain asbestos. A limited extension
has been made in two cases. Because of its accessibility and prevalence, the
frequent difficulty of identifying its asbestos content and the frequency of
maintenance activity which may disturb it matrix. The Agency is requiring
that resilient flooring installed before 1980 be presumed to contain asbestos
unless rebutted pursuant to the standard. Debris which is present in rooms,
enclosures or areas where PACM or high risk ACM is present and not intact, is
assumed to be asbestos-containing. Other building materials which may contain
asbestos such as roofing material, ceiling tiles and miscellaneous products
listed in EPA's "Green Book" have not been found to be both as widely
prevalent and easily disturbed and damaged as are TSI and surfacing material
or as widely prevalent, accessible and frequently disturbed as resilient
flooring.

Therefore, OSHA believes little additional benefit will result from treating
all such building materials which uncommonly contain asbestos as if they do,
rather than concentrating resources on protecting employees from exposure to
materials when there is actual knowledge or reason to believe they contain
asbestos. OSHA notes in this regard that an employer or building owner's duty
to investigate the possibility that a material contains asbestos is stronger
when the consequences of failing to inquire is increased hazard to employees.
For example, in the case where a large section of damaged ceiling tiles
installed before 1980 is to be removed, an employer may not ignore the
possibility that the tiles are asbestos-containing. By not including some
building materials in the presumption OSHA is not reducing an employer's duty
to exercise "due diligence" when exposing employees to such kinds of
materials. The Agency has determined merely that the record does not compel
the adoption of a presumption for such materials; in any such specific case,
circumstances may require the employer or building owner to sample and
analyze building materials for asbestos content, or to treat the material as
if it is asbestos-containing under the standard.

On a different issue, OSHA is not specifying in the regulatory text the
qualifications of the person who may designate materials as PACM. Under
AHERA, inspections are required to be conducted by certified inspectors (40
CFR 763, also see recent revisions of Model Accreditation under ASHARA, 59 FR
5236-5260, February 3, 1994). The Agency has found that designation of the
kinds of building materials as PACM is not an inspection. This process does
not require technical training: thermal system insulation is easily
recognized; sprayed on or troweled on surfacing material likewise is
identifiable. Neither EPA's revised MAP nor OSHA requires specific training
or accreditation of persons who only visually inspect the condition of
ACM/PACM.

OSHA emphasizes that the presumption must apply even where it appears to
knowledgeable building personnel, that material is not asbestos-containing
and is composed of other materials, such as fiberglass. Therefore, OSHA has
not adopted the suggestion of some participants to specify that certain
materials such as fiberglass and neoprene, because they are easily
identifiable, should not be included in the presumption (see Ex. 162-57).
OSHA notes that HEI distinguished a "visual survey," i.e., the identification
of suspect materials from more complete surveys, and notes that "this type of
survey may minimize the need for trained consultants." (HEI, Ex. 1-344, at
5.1) Some participants suggested that OSHA include the condition of the
material in its "high-risk" category to be subject to the presumption.
Although the condition of the material influences its risk potential, OSHA
continues its practice of not distinguishing materials based on their
friability. However, the condition of the material is relevant to whether
debris, in the presence of ACM, must be presumed to be asbestos containing.
The standard requires that debris in an enclosed area where TSI or surfacing
ACM is present, and not intact, be presumed to be asbestos-containing.

OSHA has not used friability to distinguish among asbestos containing
materials. First, OSHA mainly regulates active disturbances of asbestos, and
uses exposure levels as one element in assigning risk-based requirements.
Since the friability of material will influence exposure levels, friability
is partly subsumed by this reference to exposure levels. Second, the term's
precise meaning is unclear, and thus, confusing to the regulated community.
The EPA experience in distinguishing risk categories based on friability
indicates the complexity of using this concept. In 1973 the EPA-NESHAP had
regulated only friable ACM, but later issued a clarification which stated:

* * * Even though the regulations address only material that is presently
friable, it does not limit itself to material that is friable at the time of
notification. Rather, if at any point during the renovation of demolition
additional friable asbestos material is * * * created from non-friable forms,
this additional friable material becomes subject to the regulations from the
time of creation (Ex. 1-239, p. 48406).

Third, OSHA's risk categories which are based on the type of material
include the potential for friability. For example, surfacing material is
loosely bound and therefore is potentially more friable than are other
materials and thus is considered to present high risk.

The revised rule also allows the building/facility owner or employer to
demonstrate, pursuant to specific criteria, that the material does not
contain asbestos. The criteria, specified in paragraph (k)(4)(ii) are similar
to the inspection protocols for schools in AHERA, such as sampling and
analysis by a certified building inspector.

OSHA also considered allowing the use of specific information in the
building/facility owner's possession relating to construction specifications
to rebut the presumption. However, many who made submissions during the
supplementary comment period, pointed out to the Agency that building records
were rarely adequate to convincingly establish the absence of ACM in
buildings and recommended that they should not be used for rebutting the
presumption (Ex. 162-2, 162-4, 162-5, 162-7, 162-11, 162-12, 162-13, 162-19,
162-22, 162-24, 162-25, 162-27, 162-31, 162-32, 162-33, 162-36, 162-39,
162-42, 162-44, 162-45, 162-46, 162-54). Some felt that building records
might be useful in confirming, but not rebutting, the presumption, while
others deemed the only reliable records were comprised of an AHERA-like
comprehensive building survey with bulk sampling data (Ex. 162-1, 162-12,
162-13, 162-24, 162-27, 162-36, 162-50, 162-58). An owner of commercial
properties observed that he had often found it easier to sample the PACM than
to locate adequate documentation (Ex. 162-29). A group of environmental
lawyers recommended that since EPA in its NESHAP rule declined to rely on
building records, OSHA should also for consistency (Ex. 162-22). Members of a
consulting firm, noted that before 1980, materials containing less than 5%
asbestos by volume were said to be asbestos-free (by EPA). Thus, such
materials would be unlikely to appear on building records if they had
contained less than 5% asbestos (Ex. 162-7).

In considering the numerous comments on the subject, most of which affirmed
the general inadequacy of building records to rebut the presumption, OSHA has
not included this as a method to establish that a building material does not
contain asbestos.

Paragraphs (k)(1)(ii) and (k)(2)(ii) set out the notification provisions for
owners and employers. They instruct them concerning who must be notified of
the presence of ACM/PACM and how. Briefly, owners must notify employers who
bid for work in or, as tenants, will occupy space where ACM/PACM is present.
The owner must also notify employees who will perform work subject to this
standard in such areas before such work is begun. This work consists of Class
I through IV asbestos work, and the installation of new asbestos-containing
material. Similar provisions apply to employers who are not owners.
[Paragraph (k)(2)(ii)].

The BCTD suggested that notice of ACM take place early in the contracting
process (Ex. 162-42) and a representative of the Interstate Natural Gas
Association agreed that pre-bid notification of contractors was needed (Ex.
162-9). OSHA agrees. Requiring notification to prospective contractors at bid
time will improve employee protection. Knowledge about asbestos presence
gained after bidding may cause the bidder to dilute protection in order to
salvage the bid. Contractors may lose time and money if they conscientiously
stop a job when asbestos is discovered. Other participants echoed these
reasons (see, e.g., NCRA, Tr. 2430-2432; Testimony of C. Gowan, Tr. 834-835.)
Notifying employers leasing space containing ACM was also recommended (Ex
162-29).

The standard provides that notification may be either in writing or via a
personal communication between the owner and persons owed notification or
their authorized representatives. OSHA expects that in the case of contracts
for work to be performed, notifications will be included in the bid
documents. In other cases it may be "faxed," telephoned or otherwise
communicated. OSHA believes these notifications, supplemented by clarified
labeling requirements [see (k)(7)(vii)], and regulated area posting, will
provide ample information to workers so they will not inadvertently be
exposed.

During the rulemaking, participants raised various issues concerning
notification. Several participants wanted accessibility to be a consideration
in the approach (Exs. 162-5, 162-11, 162-14, 162-23, 162-29, 162-30, 162-33,
162-42, 162-49, 162-55, 162-58, 162-59), and BCTD suggested that "accessible"
be defined as "material subject to disturbance by building or facility
occupants or maintenance personnel or workers performing renovation, repair
or demolition inside and/or outside buildings" (Ex. 162-42).

Most agreed that PACM and/or ACM within areas such as mechanical rooms and
boiler rooms should be labeled. For example, Mr. Olson of Dow Chemical
Company supported the posting of areas where those who may be exposed will
see it before working there (Ex. 162-17). A representative from the
Department of Defense felt that general posting in public areas would alarm
building occupants and over time, lead to reduced credibility and
effectiveness (Ex. 162-13). This was echoed in the comments of J. Thornton of
Newport News Shipbuilding who felt that signs "may breed complacency" (Ex.
162-21). One participant worried that perhaps a tenant considering renewing
his lease who had been notified of PACM within the building might choose to
relocate even though there really was no asbestos-containing materials
actually present in the building (Ex. 162-20). OSHA has decided that
"accessibility" is relevant to posting information concerning the location of
in-place asbestos. Paragraph (k)(7)(vii) requires labels to be attached at
"accessible locations." OSHA agrees with BCTD's definition as well.

Some representatives of contractor interests recommended that OSHA use as a
model for notification the California regulation by which the building owner
provides written notification to all building employees, tenants, and
contractors (Exs. 162-27, 162-32).

As noted below, paragraph (k)(7)(vii) requires previously installed asbestos
products to be labeled in most circumstances; either visibly labeled in
accordance with the standard, when feasible, or that information required on
the label be posted as close to the installed product as feasible.
Information concerning other previously-installed asbestos-containing
products must be posted in mechanical rooms or other areas which are
accessible where such material is present; or if the products are installed
in other areas, the building owner must otherwise make such information
available to employees who perform work covered by this standard. The
provision exempts from labeling and posting those products which the
manufacturer demonstrates cannot release fibers in excess of the PELs. OSHA
has found that this exemption will never apply to PACM (TSI or surfacing
ACM); rarely will it apply to other asbestos containing materials, because on
this record, disturbance of ACM can exceed the PEL. As noted in the comments
summarized above, there will be cases where labeling of such materials is not
feasible. In such case, the standard requires that signs or labels be
displayed as close as feasible to such materials. Additionally, housekeeping
workers must be informed that all resilient flooring material they clean,
buff or otherwise maintain may contain asbestos.

OSHA believes that the strategy for the flow of information regarding the
presence and location of asbestos-containing or presume- asbestos-containing
materials it has developed in this revision of its standards will assure that
workers who might be exposed to asbestos within public and commercial
buildings and/or facilities will be informed of the potential for such
exposure and through the training provisions will be made aware of the
practices they are to use to avoid exposure.

To further assure the responsible transfer of information, OSHA is requiring
that records of the work performed, the location and quantity of ACM or PACM
remaining at the completion of the work, and data supporting any rebuttal of
the presumption that a material contains asbestos, are to be maintained by
the building/facility owner and are to be transferred to successive owners of
the building/facility. Further, in the event that ACM/PACM is inadvertently
encountered, OSHA has included a requirement for timely notification. If
during the course of asbestos work ACM or PACM is discovered at a worksite,
within 24 hours of finding such material, information as to its location and
quantity are to be conveyed to the building owner and any other employers at
the site.

Shipyard Standard

In the reopening of the record for supplemental comments in November 1992,
OSHA asked for comment on the application of the proposed scheme for
shipyards. There were few specific responses. J. Curran, State of North
Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources (Ex.
162-46) and BCTD (Ex. 162-42) supported applying the construction standard to
shipyards. Mr. Siebert, a representative of the office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense, agreed with others in wanting a separate standard for
shipyards to be developed by SESAC (Ex. 162-13).

OSHA has accepted these suggestions and has issued a separate, final
standard for shipyards. Its specific provisions are discussed in appropriate
places in the preamble. It is more similar to the new construction standard
than to the general industry standard.

Training

Paragraph (k)(8) covers training. It expands the training provisions of the
current standard considerably. One, training must be given to virtually all
employees who are actively exposed to asbestos, i.e. whose exposure is the
result of performing Class I through IV work, or who install new asbestos
products. Under the unrevised standard, training was triggered by exposure
above the action level, i.e. 0.1 f/cc, the new PEL. As discussed above, OSHA
has determined that there is a still significant risk at this level. Further,
the Agency's experience in enforcing its health and safety standards, along
with testimony, comment, and data in this record clearly establish that
training of employees is a vital component of any successful program to
control exposures to asbestos and other toxic substances. Participants agreed
(see e.g., testimony of Dr. Sawyer at Tr. 2164 ". . . (T)rain the worker. I
think is the most important factor.") There was substantial record support to
expand training. Among those who advocated additional OSHA training
requirements were: P. Heffernan of Kaselaan and D'Angelo (Ex. 7-36), K.
Churchill of California Association of Asbestos Professionals (Ex. 7-95), D.
Kirby of Oak Ridge National Lab (Ex. 77-111), E. Krause of the United Union
of Roofers, Waterproofers (Ex. 7-115), G. Lofton of Heat and Frost Insulators
and Asbestos Workers Union (Ex. 7-118), P. Curran of North Carolina State
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (Ex. 7-118), W.
Dundulis of the State of Rhode Island Department of Health (Ex. 7-124), BCTD
(Ex. 119), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Ex.
141), Service Employees International Unions, AFL-CIO (Ex. 144), National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Tr. 230).

The second major expansion of training requirements covers curriculum method
and length of training. Before, in the 1986 standard, OSHA merely required
that certain topics be covered in the training program.

Subsequently, as OSHA noted in its proposal, and participants noted in their
comments, EPA's training requirements under the Asbestos Hazard Response Act
(AHERA) become the standard for the asbestos abatement industry. Under AHERA,
at the time of the proposal:

. . . Inspectors must take a 3-day training course; management planners must
take the inspection course plus an additional 2 days devoted to management
planning; and abatement project designers are required to have at least 3
days of training. In addition, asbestos abatement contractors and supervisors
must take a 4-day training course and asbestos abatement workers are required
to take a 3-day training course. For all disciplines, persons seeking
accreditation must also pass an examination and participate in annual
re-training courses. A complete description of accreditation requirements can
be found in the Model Accreditation Plan at 40 CFR part 763, subpart E,
appendix C.I.1.A. through E. (54 Fr, November 29, 1989 at 49190).

More recently, EPA has published an interim rule updating its Model
Accreditation Plan (MAP) (59 FR 5236-5260, February 3, 1994) pursuant to the
Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act (ASHARA). Under the
revisions, the length of certain courses has increased, i.e. asbestos
abatement workers now must take a 4-day, rather than a 3-day course.
Additionally, the entire MAP now applies to work in "public and commercial
buildings as well as in schools," and requires more "hands-on" training. For
example, for abatement workers 14 hours of hands-on training must be included
in the 4-day training course.

The training provisions in the new standard correspond to the class of work
performed. For Class I and II work, employers must provide employees with a
training course which is the equivalent in curriculum, training method and
length to the EPA MAP worker training described above. Keying OSHA required
training to the AHERA program was supported by many participants; in many
sections of the country, most training is now done using AHERA accreditation
as the standard for quality, (see e.g., testimony of Daniel Swartzman, School
of Public Health, Univ. of Ill, Tr. at 486. et seq.). and because AHERA
training as noted above, is the recognized standard for quality in asbestos
work (see. must be trained in the proposal, OSHA asked for comment on whether
OSHA should provide model curricula and certification for training, and on
whether and how OSHA training requirements should be reconciled with those of
EPA (55 FR 29726-28).

Much debate on these issues occurred in this rulemaking. Some, most
prominently, BCTD, (Ex. 143 at 220 et seq, see also Tr. 483; Tr. 1142, Tr.
3547) stated that OSHA should develop model curricula and certify training
courses for asbestos workers. Reasons for this were given as: OSHA's earlier
training requirements are inadequate; that "AHERA has proved successful, but
needs improvement," and that AHERA should be improved by more "hands-on"
training and testing and longer training (see Ex. 143 at 232).

The Agency notes that participants agreeing and disagreeing with the need
for OSHA certification of trainers and courses agreed with BCTD's reasons.
For example, R. Chadwick the President of Local Union 22 of the International
Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, in a letter to
OSHA stated that since OSHA stipulated no specific minimum period of
training, "Most abatement contractors show a 2-hour film and classify the
workers being trained" (Ex. 1-175). OSHA agreed with the above comment that
its 1986 training requirements fairly can be considered "bare-bones."

Although BCTD argued that the AHERA model needed improvement, BCTD
acknowledged its success in improving worksite conditions (see Ex. 143 at
240, citing Ex. 7-52). EPA itself has improved its training program. As noted
above, it recently issued improved model curricula, increasing the training
requirements. In particular, the new MAP contains specific "hands-on"
training requirements in each major course, including those of workers and
supervisors (59 FR 5236-60, February 3, 1994). EPA also increased the number
of training hours and now requires 4-day training of workers, and 5-day
training of supervisors. Other disciplines of the AHERA program also have
increased training requirements.

OSHA has reviewed recommendations carefully and has concluded that requiring
OSHA to certify training courses and trainers would consume a
disproportionate share of OSHA's resources. Further, establishing another
system for certifying asbestos trainers and workers when another agency has a
similar program in place would be duplicative of effort as well. OSHA's
concerns regarding duplication of effort is also addressed in this preamble
in the section on the notification of OSHA vis-a-vis that of EPA under
NESHAP.

In addition, other entities have already developed more stringent curricula
than those under AHERA. The HEI Report noted that under AHERA each state
develops "training and certification programs for inspectors, management
planner, asbestos abatement workers and supervisors that were at least as
stringent as the AHERA model" (Ex. 1-344, p. 5-51). It further found that a
"number of states have developed other requirements that exceeded the AHERA
requirement" and that "* * * in some states AHERA certification are required
for any asbestos-related work" -- not just for schools.

Paragraphs (k)(8)(i)-(v) cover curricula and length of course requirement.
They allow flexibility in the new training provisions. Courses equivalent to
those of AHERA (ASHARA) may be substituted, but must be equivalent in
curriculum, training method, and length to that of the EPA plan. Thus,
employers who in-house training program meets these requirements does not
need send all workers off-site for the required training. Several
commentaries objected to requiring that all training take place in EPA or
state approved training centers, most also praised job-specific training as
superior (e.g., Ex. 7-21, 7-39, 7-50, 7-99, 7-100, 7-102, 7-103, 7-108,
7-150).

Training Requirements for Employees Performing Class III and IV Work:

In these standards OSHA does not define the term "custodian" nor do the
requirements differ based on the job title. OSHA agrees that in some
facilities there is a clear distinction between custodial workers who as a
participant noted, "may only * * * strip or buff floor tile or replace light
bulbs in fixtures located below ACM" and maintenance workers "who * * * work
on building materials or systems that contain asbestos". (ICSC, Ex. 162-58 at
10). Relying on job title, however, to assign duties is inexact and
potentially non-protective. Rather in these standards, the nature of the
operations performed by that worker determine the level of training required,
regardless of job title; janitor, custodian, or maintenance worker. Those who
perform only Class IV work must receive at least 2 hours of awareness
training, and those who do Class III work must be given 16 hours of training
equivalent in content and length to the 16 hour operations and maintenance
course developed by EPA (see 40 CFR 763.92(a)(2).

Workers performing these activities may be employees of the building owners
or other employers such as outside housekeeping contractors, or trade
contractors such as plumbing, electrical, or air conditioning contractors.
They must be trained to use appropriate measures to avoid exposure to
airborne asbestos.

OSHA in the November 3, 1992 notice, stated that it was considering a
training requirement modelled after that of the awareness training required
by EPA in its AHERA rule. OSHA further noted that in its training
requirements under AHERA, EPA distinguishes between the duties and training
of custodial workers and the additional duties and training needs of
maintenance and service workers (40 CFR Parts 763). OSHA, too, believes that
building/facility workers, who frequently disturb asbestos containing
material need more extensive training.

Many who commented during the supplemental comment period agreed that OSHA
should use AHERA as a general model for drafting training requirements for
building/facility workers (e.g., Ex. 162-13, 162-15, 162-16, 162-18, 162-24,
162-27, 162-30, 162-35, 162-42, 162-44, 162- 45,162-46). Others, felt the
existing OSHA training requirements were adequate (e.g., Ex. 162-4, 162-22).
Some objected to OSHA specifying a time period in its training requirements
(Ex. 162-4, 162-12, 162-17, 162-25, 162-50, 162-55, 162-57). BCTD argued that
AHERA training was inadequate for OSHA's purposes, and that any employee in a
building containing either ACM or PACM who does not intentionally handle the
material should receive at least 4 hours of awareness training and that any
worker who disturbs ACM during repair, renovation, demolition or maintenance
work needs the full 5-day training course (Ex. 162-42).

Under the training provisions of AHERA, all members of the maintenance and
custodial staffs (of schools) who may work in a building containing ACBM are
required to receive at least 2 hours of "awareness" training whether or not
they are required to work with it (40 CFR 763.92). Those who conduct an
activity which will result in disturbance of ACBM shall receive both the
awareness training and 14 additional hours of training.

EPA set as a minimum that the awareness training cover:

-- information of uses and forms of asbestos in buildings;
-- information on health effects of exposure to asbestos;
-- location of ACBM in building where employee works;
-- recognition of deteriorating or damaged ACBM; and,
-- the identity of person responsible for management of ACBM.

While the more extensive training needed by those who might disturb ACM
include in addition:

-- description of proper methods to handle ACBM;
-- information on respirator protection
-- the provisions of the AHERA rule; and,
-- hands-on training on the use of protective equipment and work practices

Information in this rulemaking discussed above shows that workers who have
performed work now designated Class III and IV have developed
asbestos-related disease. Because as noted above, training is one of the most
powerful instruments to protect workers, OSHA believes that its former
training provisions must be improved by incorporating additional curricula
such as covered in the AHERA courses for such workers. Imposing time criteria
for courses will help insure that sufficient time for instruction is
provided. More time can always be allotted, as needed.

Housekeeping practices have been shown to be effective means of reducing
employee exposure to asbestos. OSHA is specifying that the now required
cleaning of floors and surfaces on which dust containing asbestos can
accumulate be performed at least once per shift in primary and secondary
manufacturing. In addition to the current requirement that a vacuum
containing a HEPA-filter must be used, where feasible, wet methods must also
be used for clean-up. Once asbestos dust is entrained, it can accumulate on
surfaces leading to potentially substantial levels of exposure. Routine
removal of dust can greatly reduce these accumulations and the risks that
they pose.

There was little over-all objection to this provision from the participants
in the rulemaking process. However, the Asbestos Information Association
asked that OSHA not revise the current housekeeping requirements which
specify that all surfaces be maintained as free as practicable of
accumulation of dusts and wastes containing asbestos (Ex. 142, p. 7). They
argue that if OSHA requires once per shift vacuuming, it would lead to less
effective housekeeping efforts since vacuuming might then occur at a later
time in the areas most in need of housekeeping than occurs with current
cleanup whenever a fiber accumulation occurs." OSHA is unconvinced by this
argument. If the employer believes that more frequent cleanup is needed, it
should be performed. The standard merely requires that vacuuming be done no
less often than once per shift. The employer can determine when during a
shift, vacuuming is most useful and perform it then.

Flooring Maintenance Requirements

There are now a new Sec. Sec. 1926.1101 (g)(2)(iv) and 1910.1001(f)(1)(xi),
which prohibit the sanding of floor tiles containing asbestos. Further, only
low abrasion pads may be used at speeds lower than 300 rpm in "stripping"
operations, and stripping of unwaxed or unfinished floor tile containing
asbestos is prohibited. OSHA believes that without such restrictions this
type of mechanized activity may result in the release of significant levels
of asbestos fibers into the air. In addition, the new provisions allow
asbestos-containing floors to be mechanically buffed without limitation on
the speed of the buffing machine, so long as the floor has sufficient finish
to preclude contact between the pad and the asbestos-containing material. In
most cases, at least 3 layers of wax will provide that margin. If the
manufacturer's instructions specify a thicker wax layer, those instructions
must be followed. (See testimony of J. Harless of Pioneer Eclipse, ISSA).

These requirements are changed in some respects from the July, 1990
proposal, which would have further restricted stripping and burnishing
activities. The prohibition concerning "sanding" of asbestos-containing
floors was supported by ISSA and others, and it unchanged from the proposal.
(See Ex. 136D). The changes from the proposal reflect the comments and data
submitted to the record. The data show that now permitted activities are not
expected to result in the release of significant asbestos contamination. In
addition, since OSHA's proposal had used various terms relating to floor care
imprecisely, the final provisions conform the language to the common
understandings of the floor care industry. Thus, "stripping" is defined as a
wet process to remove the floor polish or finish using chemical strippers, or
abrasive pads. (See Ex. 136D, ISSA's comments). "Burnishing" is dry buffing
of floor polish by a high-speed rotary disc machine or otherwise.

The core requirements of OSHA's new provisions are that no "sanding", i.e.
the abrading of asbestos-containing material to even out the surface, is
allowed: that "stripping" of finishes of asbestos-containing flooring must be
conducted wet using the least abrasive pad possible; and that burnishing may
be performed only on floors which have sufficient finish so that the pad does
not contact the unfinished asbestos-containing material. OSHA believes that
these three principles of asbestos-containing floor maintenance are
sufficiently clear and flexible to apply to all kinds of floor maintenance
activities, even if the activity is described using different terminology.

OSHA is basing these provisions primarily on the results of studies
submitted during the rulemaking. Thus, in the most thorough and detailed
study submitted to date on this topic, BCTD furnished a copy of a study by T.
Marxhausen and S. Shaffer entitled "Vinyl Asbestos Tile: A study of airborne
asbestos concentrations during routine floor maintenance activities." (Ex.
119X) In this study both TEM and PCM measurements were made during several
operations. The results are briefly summarized in Table VIII.

The authors found that approximately 97% of the asbestos structures observed
during all analyses were less than 5 microns in length (and would therefore
not be seen by PCM). They concluded that "Concentrations were low during low
speed scrubs and burnishing of freshly built-up, new floor finishes. High
speed scrub results were highest on the worn floor but dropped to
approximately one-fifth this level on freshly built-up surfaces." The authors
noted that although high speed scrubs and burnishing operations used the same
machine and pad, the fiber levels observed in high speed scrub operations
were higher than during burnishing. They hypothesized that this had been due
to condition of the floor tested or that "the limited amount of cleaning
solution causes the higher values observed during high speed scrubbing
operations." They expressed serious concern about the elevated TEM
measurements during some of these operations and called for more extensive
study.

S. Wong, Director of Environmental Health and Safety Branch of the Los
Angeles Unified School District submitted a report of a study in which fiber
levels were measured by TEM during various floor maintenance activities (Ex.
7-11). Using a pass-fail criterion of 5 samples less than or equal to 70
structures per square millimeter (the AHERA clearance level), she found that
5 of 7 stripping pads failed. She also found that use of a brush with a
rotary powered scrubbing machine passed and that various stripping solution
used in conjunction with the brush also passed. Repeated use of a pad which
initially passed, continued to do so. In a final test using one of the
stripping solutions and 7 other brushes, all failed. However, neither the
OSHA PEL nor action level was exceeded. The report concluded with several
recommendations: (1) all VAT floor maintenance using powered equipment be
performed using wet methods exclusively; (2) that use of aggressive pads
results in release of fibers from previously applied wax (They found 5%
fibers in the old wax scraped from baseboards.) and their use should be
discontinued; (3) schools continue to use only the off-white or pink pad
which passed for buffing; (4) recommends discontinuance of use of power
equipment to strip wax from floors unless they do not contain asbestos; and,
(5) alter maintenance program to perform frequent damp mopping and less
frequent stripping.

Both studies cited above were conducted after the A.F. Meyer study discussed
in the proposal, which was conducted in October 1989, and which showed
slightly elevated asbestos levels after routine buffing (with standard red
buffing pad and standard buffing solution) and stripping. No levels, however,
exceeded OSHA's proposed PELs. Two methods were used for stripping: (1)
standard stripping mixture mopped on and standard black stripping pad, and
(2) mist spray of stripper solution and standard black stripping pad. As
noted in the proposal, the stripping conducted using a mist spray of
stripping solution and the more abrasive pad resulted in significantly higher
asbestos fiber airborne concentrations than the first method.

On January 25, 1990, in response to the A.F. Meyer study, EPA published a
"Recommended Interim Guidance for Maintenance of Asbestos-Containing Floor
Coverings," (Ex. 1-108) outlining its analysis of the Meyer's findings. The
Agency concluded that, although there was "no clear evidence" that "routine"
stripping significantly elevated levels of asbestos fibers, it observed that
higher levels did occur after a stripping machine was used on a relatively
dry, unwaxed floor.

Work practices recommended by EPA in the same guidance memo emphasize the
same precautions contained in OSHA's final standards: viz. that the least
abrasive pad be used for stripping, and that low speed equipment be used for
stripping of floors.

OSHA notes that ACCSH's recommendations for work practices in floor
maintenance also echo the themes of wet stripping, using the least abrasive
pad for stripping, limiting the speed of the machine and prohibiting floor
sanding, which are the core requirements in this standard. (Ex. 1-126).

In a change from the proposal, OSHA is permitting high speed buffing of
finished floors containing asbestos material. A number of participants
pointed out to OSHA that buffing, although performed at high speed, is done
on 3 to 5 layers of wax, unlike sanding, and that the wax, not the tile, is
polished in this process. (Ex. 7-19, 7-80, 7-84, 7-90, 7-100, 7-107, 7-123,
7-142, 7-188, 125D, 147 and Tr. at 3599). Michael B. Wheeler Chief Executive
Officer of Essential Industries Inc., stated that:

Stripping is expensive, labor and material-intensive, and, in the context of
vinyl asbestos tile something we wish to keep to a minimum. Ultra high speed
maintenance techniques allow workers in heavy trafficked stores to strip
their finished floors every 10-18 months as compared to every 2-3 months
using older low speed techniques. (Ex. 7-188).

He went on to explain that these high speed techniques also reduce the labor
requirements by at least half. He cited studies using low speed spray buffing
techniques on finished VAT which yielded fiber levels ranging from 0.015 to
0.025 f/cc and quoted the WRC-TV report that "just buffing an already waxed
floor does not throw up any asbestos from the asbestos tile." In addition,
ISSA described additional floor maintenance procedures which increase the
glossiness of the floor -- spray buffing (done at 175-300 rpm) and burnishing
(done at 300-2,000 rpm). ISSA stated that if there is finish on the floor
surface, these procedures do not generate unsafe levels of fibers because
they do not contact the floor itself. They oppose OSHA's proposed changes
prohibiting speeds of more than 190 rpm in floor machines, particularly due
to increased costs in time and money. (Ex. 136D).

Based on this record, OSHA believes that employees who burnish and/ or buff
floors using high speed floor machines will be exposed to minimal asbestos
fiber concentrations if the floor machines are used to polish finished or
polished floors, and if the pad does not contact the unpolished floor.
Industry also claims that the use of high speed buffing will increase the
intervals where stripping is required, and thus, may reduce risk to employees
who perform floor maintenance, but OSHA is not relying on this speculative
benefit.

No changes were made to this section. The medical surveillance provisions in
the 1986 construction standard are now also included in the shipyard
employment standard.

(14) Recordkeeping

Paragraph (m) General Industry Standard. Paragraph (n) Construction and
Shipyard Employment Standards. The recordkeeping provisions now include
provisions (n)(5) and (n)(6) which require maintenance of data used to rebut
the presumption that a contains asbestos, i.e., the building owner/employer
who relies on data to demonstrate that PACM is not asbestos-containing must
maintain the data upon which he relied for as long as they are used to rebut
the presumption. In addition, where the building owner has received or
provided information concerning the location, amount and identify of ACM and
PACM, he must maintain written records of them and their content for the
duration of ownership and must transfer them to successive owners.

(15) Competent Person

Paragraph (o) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards. OSHA
is adopting as final provisions most of the proposed changes to the 1986
construction standard's requirements concerning the designation of a
"competent person" on certain construction worksites. The term "competent
person" is derived from the generic construction standard's provisions. Under
these, employers must designate a "competent person" on all construction
worksites to conduct "frequent and regular inspections of the job sites,
materials, and equipment" as part of required safety and health programs
(Sec. 1926.20). At the suggestion of SESAC, OSHA has designated that the
person who performs the shipyard duties analogous to the competent person in
the construction standard will be termed a "qualified person." For the
purposes of the present discussion these terms are equivalent and will be
discussed as "competent person." The 1986 asbestos construction standard
appeared to limit this requirement. "Competent person" supervision was
required only at removal, demolition, and renovation operations which were
not "small-scale, short-duration," but under the asbestos standard, the
competent person was to be specially trained in asbestos hazards, and perform
various duties mainly involving the setting up and control of the NPE, and
the supervision of workers within the enclosure (formerly
1926.58(e)(6)(ii)).

The Court of Appeals, agreeing with BCTD, instructed OSHA to either expand
the "competent person" requirement or explain more persuasively why it
refused to do so. OSHA agrees that for all construction work involving
asbestos exposure under this standard, a "competent person" who is specially
trained in asbestos related work conditions, should either be available to
employees or be present on the work site. Like other provisions in this
standard, the more risky asbestos work deserves a more protective provision;
so employees performing Class I and II work will have the benefit of a
"competent person" on the worksite, to the extent necessary to perform his
duties as set out in paragraph (o). Employees performing Class III and IV
work, will be entitled to access to a "competent person" as needed.

Two issues regarding the "competent person" were discussed during the
rulemaking. One was the training required; and two, whether or not the
competent person needs to be present throughout the operation.

As to the second issue, the standard requires in paragraph (o)(2) and (3),
that the competent person must perform the "frequent and regular inspections
of the job sites, material and equipment" to accomplish "health and safety
programs," which are otherwise required by the general construction provision
in Sec. 1926.20(b)(2). Although no elaboration of this provision is provided,
OSHA intends that in all work covered by this standard, including Class IV
work and work not included in a "Class," a competent person insures, by
inspecting the worksite, that workers exposed to asbestos are protected by
the relevant provisions of this standard, and that they are informed pursuant
to paragraph (k) of this standard about the presence and location of ACM and
PACM. Additionally, paragraph (o)(3) requires that in Class I operations the
"competent person" must make on-site inspections at least once during the
workshift and any time at employee request. In addition, the list of specific
duties of the "competent person" in paragraph (o)(3)(i) for Class I and II
work includes specific language requiring the required supervision of various
controls and work practices to be made through "on-site inspection."

The record supports the need for on-site supervision of setting up of
controls. Chip D'Angelo, when asked what were his major concern about glove
bags, testified that "Just the act of attaching * * * concerns us * * * a lot
of times the material is so overly dry and very loose * * * simply attaching
the bag can create some problems * * * Removing the bag, if not done properly
and evacuated properly and twisted properly, actually expels fibers out into
the air" (Tr. 3126). For example, he/she must be present when a glove bag is
attached and determine that a smoke test is passed and again be present when
the bag is removed. It is not necessary that the competent person continually
watch the operation, rather that he oversees its proper completion. OSHA has
not specified the ratio of on-site supervisors to abatement workers. Mr.
Booher of Exxon Company, testified that "if you have three glove bag
operations going on next to one another, in close proximity to one another,
that one competent person can handle up to three jobs effectively" (Tr.
2677). The Agency believes that various operations need closer supervision
than others; the exposure assessment should clarify how close supervision
needs to be. So long as the specific activities in the standard requiring
inspection are covered, the extent of the required inspections are up to the
judgment of the "competent person."

Training for the competent person is the same for those who supervise Class
I and II asbestos work under the standard. The training must be obtained in a
course which is the equivalent of the EPA supervisor course. Unlike the
training requirements for workers for Class II jobs which may concentrate on
a particular kind of material if that is the only asbestos work which an
employee does, the "competent person" supervising Class II jobs must be
trained comprehensively in all aspects of asbestos related construction work.
Thus, for example, a flooring removal supervisor must be informed about all
asbestos removal control methods: this is the person who must evaluate a
prospective job to assure that the PELs will not be exceeded, who must choose
among available controls to reduce exposures, and must know how to supervise
extensive control systems if they are needed for high exposure Class II work.

The training requirements of persons supervising Class III work are
different. Most Class III work is maintaining or renovating building
components. Supervisors of such work need not be trained in methods of
abating asbestos material on a large scale. The EPA asbestos in schools
rules, now updated to encompass commercial and public buildings requires that
maintenance workers in asbestos-containing buildings be trained in a 16-hour
course which includes; proper asbestos-related work practices, waste handling
and disposal, respirator use, decontamination procedures, and the content of
applicable Federal, state and local asbestos regulations. All Class III
workers and their supervisors must take such a course, which covers all
control measures required for Class III work. In this regard OSHA notes
comments which stated that training supervisors of plumbers, pipefitters, and
sheet metal workers, who are engaged in projects of incidental removal that
are small scale and short term, in full enclosure techniques is wasteful (see
e.g. Ex. 7-151, 152, 153).

Although the formal training for supervisors and workers in Class III work
is the same, additional criteria for "competency" contained in the general
construction standard distinguish worker and supervisor on all asbestos jobs,
including Class III.

Thus, the "competent person" must be "capable of identifying existing and
predictable hazards * * * which are * * * hazardous to employees, and (have)
authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them" (29 CFR
1926.32(f)). Also, the "competent person" must be designated by the employer
(29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2)). OSHA notes that the "competency" of the competent
person is independent of the training required. "Competency" as well as
training is required. Thus, a "competent person" is not merely someone with a
specified level of training but connotes a high level of knowledge of
worksite safety and health issues as well.

The need for a high degree of expertise for Class III work was acknowledged
by labor representatives. (See ACCSH reference in the proposal at 55 FR
29727, and R. Gobbell's testimony (Tr. 4318). Employer representatives
questioned the need for this uniform training requirements for competent
persons supervising all asbestos work, but also acknowledged that supervisors
of maintenance projects needed training in the control methods required (See
e.g.Ex. 7-151, 7-152, 153); others stated that in-house training was often
superior to EPA's (see e.g. Amoco Corporation, Ex. 7-37); and that trained
competent persons should be allowed to train other workers (Gulf Power
Company, Ex. 7-50). OSHA is allowing in-house training so long as it meets
the criteria for curriculum, length, and method of training contained in the
standard.

Training for "competent persons" for Class IV work depends on when that work
is performed. When Class IV workers perform their duties in facilities and
buildings where no other asbestos work is taking place, the "competent
person" supervising them must be trained in an EPA accredited course on
operations and maintenance workers or its equivalent, much as for Class III
work. If clean-up work is done within a regulated area, supervision of the
clean-up must be conducted by the "competent person" who is supervising the
asbestos job for which the area was established, which in most cases will be
Class I and II work.

A number of participants in the rulemaking, primarily representing industry
interests, objected to the proposed requirement for a competent person
specifically trained in an EPA-approved course to oversee workers performing
small-scale, short duration asbestos jobs. These included: J. Bavan of
Michigan Consumers Power (Ex 7-21), Mr. Quanstrom of Amoco Corporation who
felt in-house training was often superior to EPA's (Ex. 7-37), and others
contain virtually identical comments in which the plumbing contractors state
their support.

Based on the record evidence, OSHA concludes that its expansion of the
competent person requirements and additional requirements for training are
appropriate.

Shipyard Employment Standard

SESAC agreed that asbestos operations should be overseen by personnel who
have the qualifications to ensure that asbestos operations are performed
safely; however, they noted in their submission (Ex. 7-77) that in existing
OSHA shipyard standards, the term competent person(s) has been used to refer
to a person who is uniquely qualified to perform entry tests preparatory to
entering enclosed and confined spaces and felt that the use of this term as
employed in the asbestos standard would cause confusion. They suggested that
the competent person be called a "qualified" person in the shipyard standard.
OSHA does not object to this substitution of terms, but notes that all
requirements for competent/qualified person(s) are to be equivalent.

SESAC also pointed to a process which may be the general case in large
operations, in which the duties of the shipyard qualified person are shared
or divided between two or more persons. That is, in some of the larger
companies represented on the committee, a training department (not a person)
is responsible for ensuring that employees are trained and another department
is responsible for setting up the regulated area, while an industrial hygiene
department conducts all monitoring. SESAC recommended that this be
specifically allowed. OSHA feels that the current regulatory language permits
utilizing this organization of responsibilities and agrees with the
suggestion that it is appropriate for shipyards.

(p) Dates

The amendments to the General Industry and Construction Standards and the
new Shipyard Employment Standard become effective 60 days after date of
publication in the Federal Register. All existing provisions remain in
effect (including coverage of Shipyards by the General Industry Standard)
until the new provision's start-up dates. Various start-up dates are set
forth in the standards. Where there is no start-up date for a provision, the
start-up date is the effective date. If any new or amended provision is
stayed by OSHA or a court or vacated by a court, the pre-existing provision
becomes binding again.

Appendices

Appendices A, C, D, E, and F of the General Industry Standard are binding.
Appendices A, C, D, and E of the Construction Standard are binding.
Appendices A, C, D, E, J, and L are binding in the Shipyard Employment
Standard. Appendices B, H, I, and J of the General Industry Standard are not
binding. Appendices B, F, H, I, and K of the Construction Standard are not
binding. Appendices B, F, H, I, and K of the Shipyard Employment Standard are
not binding. They are intended neither to add to or detract from binding
requirements.

Shipyard Employment Standard. With respect to the appendices to the
standard, SESAC recommended inclusion of the appendix dealing with work
practices and engineering controls for automotive brake and clutch repair and
assembly in the shipyard standard. OSHA agrees that this appendix is
appropriate to the shipyard employment standard, since these activities occur
within shipyards and has included this as appendix L in the shipyard
employment standard. OSHA further notes that this appendix has been amended
subsequent to consideration by SESAC, and therefore differs from the
alternate regulatory language suggested by the committee. For example, the
Agency no longer considers the solvent spray can a preferred method for
controlling asbestos contamination and will not include it in either
standard.

Appendix A

All changes indicated in this document are to be made to Appendix A of the
asbestos standards and all changes are the same for 1910.1001, 1915.1001, and
1926.1101.

In the explanatory paragraph at the beginning of Appendix A phrase:

"(such as the NIOSH 7400 Method)" is replaced with:

"(such as Appendix B of this regulation, the most current version of the
OSHA method ID-160, or the most current version of the NIOSH Method 7400)."

This change is made to assure that the analytical methodologies followed are
the most current and reliable available. Appendix B of this standard has been
updated and is the most current version of OSHA ID-160. This method was
written to adhere to the language of Appendix A so that there would be no
confusion about the limits of the sampling and analytical parameters such as
flow rates. So long as parameters consistent with Appendix A are used, there
will be no analytical differences between ID-160 and NIOSH 7400 methods.

Sampling and Analytical Procedure paragraph 2:

The following sentence is added to the end of the paragraph:

"Do not reuse or reload cassettes for asbestos sample collection."

The practice of reusing cassettes can result in lower estimates of employee
exposure. Adequate cleaning of the cassettes cannot be assured. Fibers from
the cassette may become dislodged and be collected on the filter during
subsequent sampling. Employee exposure assessments are often assessed based
on a small number of fibers. This is because it is not possible in every work
place to use single cassettes for an entire work shift due to excess dust in
the air. This is significant for occupational exposures, because the
background fiber concentration must be subtracted from the compliance sample.
If fugitive fibers from used cassettes were deposited on the blank filter,
the background estimate would be artificially high and the employee exposure
will be underestimated when the background concentration is subtracted as
required. Elimination of the practice of reusing cassettes will eliminate
this source of error, thereby better assessing employee exposure. A
requirement that cassette reuse not be allowed is added to the end of
paragraph 2 of Appendix A.

Paragraph 11 is revised as follows:

11. Each set of samples taken will include 10% field blanks or a minimum of
2 field blanks. These blanks must come from the same lot as the filters used
for sample collection. The field blank results shall be averaged and
subtracted from the analytical results before reporting. A set consists of
any sample or group of samples for which an evaluation for this standard must
be made. Any samples represented by a field blank having a fiber count in
excess of the detection limit of the method being used shall be rejected.

The original wording of the standard was inadequate to apply meaningfully to
certain sampling practices, such as continuous sampling. This change
establishes that the blanks are to be field blanks. This wording also
establishes when blanks are to be taken. The specific practice to be followed
for blank correction is outlined in Appendix B, the detailed analytical
method. Each time an evaluation of work place exposure is made for the
purposes of this standard, the samples used in that evaluation must be
represented by valid blanks taken in the work space where the compliance
samples were taken.

The following changes apply to the Quality Control Section.
Paragraph 2 is renumbered 2(a). Since the standard was promulgated, the lack
of a specific requirement to participate the Program for Analytical Testing
(PAT) has led to confusion with the requirement that laboratories participate
in a round robin using samples taken from real world samples.

A second paragraph is added directly following 2(a) and is denoted 2(b).

2(b) All laboratories should participate in a national sample testing scheme
such as the Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT), the Asbestos
Registry sponsored by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).

This is a requirement of OSHA method ID-160 and NIOSH 7400. This requirement
was originally left out of the standard because of the uncertain status of
the PAT program at the time of promulgation of the standard. Inclusion at
this time is to make it clear that the required participation in a round
robin indicated in paragraph 2(a) is not satisfied by participation in the
PAT program. Such participation is however, highly desirable and may be
required for private accreditation.

Since the original promulgation of the asbestos standards, there have been
several improvements and refinements to the analytical procedure. Two major
analytical methods reflect these changes and continue to be updated as
necessary. The changes are mostly procedural, providing safer analysis and
clearer descriptions of the procedures that are to be carried out. As a
result, Appendix A and Appendix B have been updated to reflect the most
recent refinements.

Changes to the mandatory asbestos method Appendix A are intended to clarify
some of the requirements of the method. Wording has been inserted to indicate
what methods are acceptable. A definition of what constitutes a "set" of
asbestos samples was added to more clearly define when blank samples are to
be taken and to reinforce that they are to be field samples.

Paragraph 11 is amended to clarify what a set of samples is and when it is
necessary to take blank samples.

An early draft version of NIOSH method 7400 was used for the model of
Appendix B. There were several problems with the method including the
potentially dangerous practice of boiling acetone. This appendix has been
replaced entirely with the most current version of OSHA method ID-160
Asbestos in Air. The OSHA ID-160 give the same results as NIOSH 7400 when
used within the sampling constraints imposed by Appendix A, notably the flow
rate limits of between 0.5 and 5 liters per minute for the 25 mm cassette and
1 to 5 for the 37 mm cassette. The counting rules are functionally the same
for both methods. Use of Appendix B, OSHA ID-160 or NIOSH method 7400 when
used within the constraints of Appendix A are all acceptable and equivalent.
Appendix B is the same as OSHA method ID-160 on the date of publication of
these changes. It, like NIOSH method 7400, is subject to change when such
changes will result in better methodology.

As the PEL has been lowered to 0.1 fiber/cc, there is an increased concern
about sample overloading as voiced by several commentors such as the American
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). Such overloading is the presence of
non-asbestos dust on the surface of the filter obscuring the filter surface.
Such dust has been shown to decrease the number of fibers counted even before
the surface is fully obscured. Some employers have taken samples in such a
way that there are no representative samples for the work being performed
because all of the filters have been obscured by excess dust. The intention
of Appendix A is to provide for the most precise measurement possible while
allowing for the fact that many work places have an exceeding amount of
non-asbestos dust. Appendix A suggests that a sample be collected such that
there are a minimum of 100 fibers/mm(2). In many work places this is not
possible. It is preferable to collect a sample that can be used to estimate
the asbestos concentration even if it is with a higher than ideal error level
than it is to collect a large volume and completely obscure the filter
rendering the sample useless.

An acceptable weight of dust on the filter is highly dependent on the
average particle size of the dust. Very small particles such as those from
diesel exhaust will quickly obscure the filter with very little weight (much
less than 1 mg on the filter). On the other hand, large particles may load
the weight up beyond several milligrams with little loss in fiber count. For
5 micrometer diameter particles with a density of 3, 25% of the filter area
will be obscured with a total weight on the filter of 1mg. Increasing the
average diameter of the particles to 10 micrometers will double the allowable
weight to 2mg. It is very important for the person conducting sampling to be
careful about the dust levels in the air. It is acceptable to take a series
of samples to model the work place air when serial sampling will result in
samples that can be used. Serial sampling has the additional benefit that
higher asbestos concentrations can be measured by reducing the volume of air
drawn through each filter.

Appendix G

OSHA is removing appendix G from the construction standard. The rulemaking
proceeding and the Agency's experience enforcing the unrevised standard
showed that this "non-mandatory" appendix was unclear and that portions of it
belonged in the regulatory text. Former appendix G covered controls for all
four classes of asbestos work. Therefore, OSHA has extracted the main
provisions covering various controls and practices required for each class
and placed them as discussed in the regulatory text applying to each
operation covered.

OSHA knows that some employers would like additional guidance on
specifications for required work practices and controls. The EPA "Greenbook,"
(Ex. 1-183), NIBS Guidance Manual (Ex. 1-371) and other sources of specific
work practices are available.

Appendix J

OSHA method ID-191 for bulk asbestos analysis has been included as Appendix
J, to provide a suggested uniform method for the identification of asbestos.
This method uses polarized light optics on a phase contrast microscope. Using
this methodology, fibers visible in phase contrast illumination can be viewed
to assess whether there might be potential for asbestos exposure from a
material which can be measured by a phase contrast counting method. This
method also contains the criteria used by OSHA to differentiate between
asbestiform and non-habit of minerals. The text of the method is
informational and explains its limitations and proper use.

Environmental Assessment; Findings of No Significant Impact

OSHA has reviewed the environmental impact in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA
regulations (40 CFR Part 1500), and OSHA's NEPA compliance procedures (29 CFR
Part 11).

As a result of this review, OSHA has determined that these regulations will
have no impact on air, water or soil quality, plant or animal life, or the
use of land or aspects of the external environment. Therefore, OSHA concludes
there will be no significant impact on the general quality of the human
environment outside the workplace, particularly in terms of ambient air
quality, water quality, or solid waste disposal. No comments made at the
public hearing or submitted to the record contradict this conclusion.

State Plan Requirements

The 25 States and territories with their own OSHA-approved occupational
safety and health plans must revise their existing standards within six
months of the publication date of the final standards or show OSHA why there
is no need for action, e.g., because existing state standards are already "at
least as effective" as the new Federal standards. These States are:
California, Connecticut (State and local government workers only), Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico,
New York (State and local government workers only), North Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington and Wyoming.
Until such time as a State standard is promulgated, Federal OSHA will provide
interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate.

Federalism

The standard has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 (52
FR 41685; October 30, 1987) regarding Federalism. This Order requires that
agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy options,
consult with States prior to taking any actions that would restrict State
policy options, and take such actions only when there is clear constitutional
authority and the presence of a problem of national scope. The Order provides
for preemption of State law only if there is a clear constitutional authority
and the presence of a problem of national scope. Additionally, the Order
provides for preemption of State law only if there is a clear Congressional
intent for the agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the
extent possible.

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), expresses
Congress' clear intent to preempt State laws relating to issues with respect
to which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational safety or health
standards. Under the OSH Act a State can avoid preemption only if it submits,
and obtains Federal approval of, a plan for the development of such standards
and their enforcement. Occupational safety and health standards developed by
such Plan-States must, among other things, be at least as effective in
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the
Federal standards.

The Federally promulgated Asbestos standard is drafted so that workers in
every State would be protected by general, performance-oriented standards. To
the extent that there are State or regional peculiarities that could alter
work practices, States with occupational safety and health plans approved
under section 18 of the OSH Act would be able to develop their own State
standards to deal with any special problems. Moreover, the performance nature
of this final standard, of and by itself, allows for flexibility by States
and contractors to provide as much safety as possible using varying methods
consonant with conditions in each State.

In short, there is a clear national problem related to occupational safety
and health of workers. While the individual States, if all acted, might be
able collectively to deal with the safety problems involved; most have not
elected to do so in the twenty-three years since the enactment if the OSH
Act. Those States which have elected to participate under section 18 of the
OSHA Act would not be preempted by this final regulation and would be able to
deal with special, local conditions within the framework provided by this
performance-oriented standard while ensuring that their standards are at
least as effective as the Federal standard.

IV. Final Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

A. Introduction

In this final revision to the asbestos standard for construction, general
industry and shipyards, OSHA is lowering the permissible exposure limit in
all affected industry sectors to 0.1 f/cc as an 8-hour time-weighted average.
In addition, OSHA is revising ancillary requirements in the current standard
to respond to three issues remanded to the Agency by the Court. These issues
involved expanded competent person training, clarification of the definition
for small-scale, short-duration construction projects, and reporting and
transfer requirements in construction. Also, permissible controls in brake
and clutch operations are addressed in a revision to the standard for general
industry.

Executive Order 12866 requires that a regulatory impact analysis be prepared
for any regulation that meets the criteria for a "significant regulatory
action." Among these criteria, relevant to this rulemaking is the requirement
that the rule have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

Consistent with these requirements, OSHA has made a determination that the
final revised standard will constitute a significant regulatory action.
Accordingly, OSHA has prepared this Final Regulatory Impact and Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis to demonstrate the technological and economic
feasibility of the final revision.

B. Industry Profile

Characteristics and Properties of Asbestos

Asbestos is the generic term applied to a group of naturally-occurring,
fibrous silicates characterized by high tensile strength,(1) flexibility, and
resistance to thermal, chemical, and electrical conditions. According to the
Bureau of Mines, a number of silicates occur naturally in fibrous form,
however, not all of these mineral forms are labeled asbestos. Historically,
only minerals with (1) commercial importance (2) a crystalline structure with
fiber growth along two planes (i.e., lengthwise) and (3) sufficient fiber
growth such that the fibers can be identified, separated, and processed, are
given the name asbestos [Campbell, 1977].

__________

Footnote(1) Tensile strength is defined as the resistance of a material to a
force tending to tear it apart.

Asbestos silicates are divided into two mineral groups: serpentine and
amphiboles. Both groups are widely distributed in the earth's crust in many
igneous and metamorphic rocks. In rare instances, these mineral deposits
contain sufficient quantities of usable asbestiform minerals rendering it
profitable to mine for commercial asbestos. Some types of commercial asbestos
have the properties of softness, silkiness and flexibility that, among other
uses, permits them to be spun into thread from which cloth can be woven. This
variety, found in the serpentine group and given the name chrysotile, is by
far the most abundant of the asbestos minerals, comprising over 90 percent of
world production. Five other commercial varieties -- riebeckite
(crocidolite), grunerite (amosite), anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite
-- belong to the amphibole group and, unlike the serpentines, are
characterized by hard and brittle fibers. Chrysotile, amosite, and
crocidolite all have extremely high tensile strengths and have been used
extensively as reinforcers in cements, resins, and plastics.

Asbestos Production, Consumption, and Use

In the production process, asbestos ore is mined and then milled to achieve
a homogeneous, graded input. Raw asbestos is shipped to primary industries to
be processed into intermediate or finished products. For some goods,
secondary manufacturing may be necessary to complete the production process.
The finished product is then sold to construction/ consumer industries for
application, installation or erection without further modification.

Domestically used asbestos fibers are technically classified into seven
quality categories, or grades, with the longer, higher-strength fibers given
lower-numbered grade levels.

Table 1 presents the 1992 distribution of asbestos consumption in the United
States, by end use, type and grade. Historically, Grades 1, 2 and 3 were used
for relatively refined uses such as textiles, electrical insulation, and
pharmaceutical and beverage filters. With the introduction of ceramic fibers,
fibrous glass, cellulose fibers and other substitutes, use of asbestos in
these and other products has declined in recent years. As Table 1 shows, U.S.
consumption of chrysotile asbestos is concentrated in Grade 7, whose shorter,
lower-strength fibers are used as reinforcers in coatings and compounds,
clutch facings and brake linings (friction products), packing and gaskets,
and roofing products.

Table 1. -- U.S. Asbestos Consumption By End Use, Type and Grade

(For Table 1, see printed copy)

Total U.S. asbestos consumption declined 6 percent in 1992 from a level of
roughly 35 thousand metric tons(2) a year earlier. Of the 32.8 thousand
metric tons used in final products in 1992, 31.6 thousand metric tons were
imported, at a value of $7.2 million dollars (not shown in table). World
production in 1992 was an estimated 3.1 million metric tons [Bureau of Mines,
1993, Table 1].

__________

Footnote(2) According to the Bureau of Mines, 1991 apparent consumption of
asbestos in the United States was 34,765 metric tons [Bureau of Mines, 1993,
Table 1]. Total consumption shown in table 1, taken from another Bureau of
Mines table, differs from the first estimate by roughly 800 metric tons. The
difference may be partly accounted for by the exclusion of the "Other"
category from 1991 total in Table 1.

In July 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule under
section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act to prohibit the future
manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution of asbestos in almost
all products. The Asbestos Ban and Phaseout Rule (40 CFR 763.160) was
scheduled to eliminate asbestos in most commercial products in three stages
over seven years beginning in 1990 and ending in 1996. EPA's asbestos rule
was challenged in U.S. court by the asbestos industry. In October 1991, the
U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded most of the ban and
phaseout rule to EPA. As a result of the Court decision, most asbestos
products are no longer subject to the ban and phaseout rule. The Court chose
to let stand EPA's authority to ban products that no longer are being
produced in or imported into the United States.

Consumption of asbestos products in the United States has declined in recent
years due to technological, regulatory and economic factors. U.S.
manufacturers have modified product design to either (1) accommodate the use
of asbestos substitutes or (2) eliminate the need for fibrous materials
altogether. Examples of asbestos substitutes include aramid fiber, carbon
fiber, cellulose fiber, ceramic fiber, fibrous glass, organic fiber, steel
fibers, and wollastonite. The following products have been successfully
introduced as alternatives to asbestos: aluminum, vinyl and wood siding;
aluminum and fiberglass sheet; asphalt coatings; ductile iron pipe;
polyvinylchloride pipe; prestressed and reinforced concrete pipe; and
semimetallic brakes. Although the introduction of asbestos substitutes and
alternatives enables manufacturers to avoid contact with asbestos, many of
these surrogates pose occupational health hazards of varying degrees.

Despite the decline in U.S. consumption of asbestos, foreign markets
continue to demand U.S. asbestos products. The export and re-export of
asbestos fibers and asbestos products from the United States was valued at
$140.8 million in 1992, an increase of 14 percent from the 1991 level.
Leading importers of American asbestos materials were Canada, Japan, Mexico,
the United Kingdom, and Germany. At the same time, three members of the
European Community -- Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy -- are taking
legislative steps to ban the use of asbestos. Effective dates for the ban
initiatives ranged from July 1993 to 1995. In addition, Finland and Poland
are phasing out the importation and use of asbestos [Canadian Mineral
Yearbook, 1993, p. 10.4].

Asbestos Exposure in General Industry

OSHA has determined that the following general industry groups will be
affected by the revision to the asbestos standard: primary manufacture of
asbestos friction materials (SIC 3292); primary manufacture of asbestos
gaskets and packings (SIC 3053); primary manufacture of asbestos adhesives,
sealants, and coatings (SIC 2952); primary manufacture of asbestos-reinforced
plastics (SIC 3089); general automotive repair (SICs 551, 554 and 753) and
shipbuilding and repair (SIC 3731).

In addition, secondary gaskets and packings and secondary auto
remanufacturing fall under the scope of the revised standard. However, few
impacts, if any, are anticipated for these industry groups due to their low
current exposure levels (below the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc).

"Primary Manufacturing." Primary manufacturers use asbestos fiber as a raw
material in the production of an intermediate product to be further processed
or fabricated into a finished product. As shown in Table 2, two processes --
fiber introduction and product finishing/dry mechanical -- are common to all
primary manufacturing operations and, according to risk profiles in earlier
reports [RTI, 1985; ICF, 1988], have a high potential for generating airborne
asbestos fiber.

Table 2. -- Estimated Population at Risk From OccupationalExposure to Asbestos Repair, and Ship Repair

[By industry/process]

Sector

Process group

Number of affected establishments

Number of workers exposed

Number of full-time- equivalent exposed workers(a)

General Industry

Primary manufacturing: Friction materials

All

25

1,415

1,415

Introduction

323

323

Wet Mechanical

390

390

Dry Mechanical

389

389

Other

314

313

Gaskets and packings

All

9

168

168

Introduction

63

63

Wet Mechanical

23

23

Dry Mechanical

39

39

Other

43

43

Coatings and sealants

All

75

1,181

1,181

Introduction

803

803

Other

378

378

Plastics

All

1

18

18

Introduction

4

4

Wet Mechanical

1

1

Dry Mechanical

2

2

Other

11

11

Secondary manufacturing:

Gaskets and packings

Dry Mechanical

71

2,142

2,142

Auto remanufacturing.Services:

Dry Mechanical

62

1,761

1,761

Automotive repair

Dry Mechanical

329,000

676,000

126,750

Shipyards

Ship repair

All

18

985

241

Wet Removal/

Repair

788

193

Dry Removal/

Repair

197

48

Total

329,261

683,670

133,676

Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on CONSAD, 1990, and OSHA, 1994

Footnote(a) Totals in this column show the number of full-time-equivalent workers exposed to asbestos at any level

"Gaskets and packings." Asbestos gaskets are used in static situations to
avoid leakage, whereas asbestos packings are used in dynamic applications,
such as pumps and valves, to control leakage where motion takes place.
According to OSHA and CONSAD's profile of the industry, 130 production
workers in 7 establishments are exposed to asbestos.

"Coatings and sealants." Asbestos fiber is used as a filler and reinforcer
in asphalt and tar-based surface coatings. These products are then used as
roof sealants, waterproofing coatings, automobile undercoatings, protective
coatings for underground pipelines, anti-condensation coatings for
low-temperature refrigeration services and fireproofing for structural steel.
OSHA estimates that 1,181 production workers in 75 coatings and sealants
plants are affected by the revised standard.

"Primary manufacture of plastics." Asbestos-reinforced plastic molding
compounds are used in the electronic, automotive, and printing industries.
Primary manufacturers of asbestos-reinforced plastics produce molding
compounds in pellet or flake form. These plastics are used in commutators and
rotors in electrical and automotive applications. Based on OSHA and CONSAD's
industry profile [CONSAD, 1990; OSHA, 1994], OSHA projects that one plastics
plant, employing eighteen workers, will be affected by the revised standard.

"Automotive repair." The general automotive repair and service sector
includes establishments involved in brake and clutch repair work and
maintenance. The major source of asbestos exposure in this sector occurs when
compressed air is used for blowing the residual dust from the brake lining
assembly. In addition, minor exposures in brake repair can occur during spray
applications and when handling cloths and other supplies contaminated with
asbestos fibers. Replacement of clutch assemblies can also lead to fiber
release. CONSAD estimates that approximately 329,000 automobile repair shops
and garages, brake and clutch repair establishments, and motor vehicle
dealers, employing 676,000 workers, will be affected by the revision to the
asbestos standard. OSHA is mandating specific engineering controls and work
practices that will affect this sector.

"Shipbuilding and repairing -- historical contact with asbestos in shipyard
work." The revision to the shipyard asbestos standard affects the
shipbuilding and repairing industry, SIC 3731. Shipbuilding and repairing is
a large-scale manufacturing activity that requires both skilled and unskilled
labor. Shipyard work can be categorized into three main operations: (1) ship
construction, (2) ship repair, and (3) ship overhaul. Asbestos exposure
occurs during those conversion, repair, or overhaul operations where
asbestos-containing components are removed or repaired.

Asbestos products were used extensively on American ships from the early
1940s through the late 1970s in joiner bulkhead systems in living space; for
insulation of steam and hot water pipes, boilers, and tanks in machinery
space; in ceiling tile; and in fire-resistant sheets in bulkheads [RTI,
1985]. However, after 1973, new specifications reduced the use of asbestos on
ships regulated by the Maritime Administration (MARAD). Use of asbestos was
only permitted in insulation cement in lagging for machinery casings and in
lagging cloth.

Since 1978, specifications for government-subsidized ships have required the
elimination of all asbestos lagging and insulation materials. Therefore,
current ship building activities ordinarily do not generate any worker
exposure to asbestos. However, OSHA believes that all ships delivered before
1975 contain extensive asbestos insulation materials, and that ships
delivered between 1975 and 1978 contain asbestos in the form of insulating
cement on machinery casings. Potential asbestos exposures occur when workers
contact these materials during maintenance and repair activities [OSHA,
1986].

"Occupational exposure to asbestos." The greatest potential for occupational
exposure to asbestos occurs during removal activities due to sawing, tearing,
cutting, and scraping operations. Additional sources of asbestos exposure,
involving a small number of shipyard workers, occur during repair activities
such as removal and installation of gaskets [OSHA, 1986]. Whenever possible,
asbestos is thoroughly wetted during removal activities. However, wet removal
in nuclear reactor compartments is not permitted because of possible
radiation contamination.

Shipyards are owned by both the private sector and the U.S. Navy. Private
sector shipyards can be classified into three categories: (1) major shipyards
engaged in construction and/or repair with drydocking facilities; (2) smaller
"second-tier" shipyards that service inland waterways and coastal commerce
and that build and repair smaller vessels; and (3) "topside" repair
facilities that work on ships while they remain in the water.

The number of reported firms in SIC 3731, Ship Building and Repairing, has
differed in recent years among traditional data sources. Many "firms"
classified within the industry are very small, perform shipyard work only
intermittently, or are marginal firms with short tenure. The 1987 Census of
Manufactures included 590 shipyards (287 with twenty or more employees)
operated by 547 companies [Dept. of Commerce, 1990a]. The Commerce
Department's 1993 Industrial Outlook estimates a total of 585 establishments
[U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1993]. However, in 1987, the Commission on Merchant
Marine and Defense reported the existence of only 305 "working" shipyards
[Merchant Marine Commission, 1987]. In their 1991 Report on Survey of U.S.
Shipbuilding and Repair Facilities, the Maritime Administration reported that
"over 200 privately-owned firms are involved in repairing ships in the United
States" [Dept. of Transportation, 1991]. In addition to the private-sector
shipyards, there are currently eight Navy-owned shipyards and two Navy-owned
ship repair facilities [U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1993].

Employment in the shipbuilding and repair industry -- as high as 184,000 in
1981 -- was 118,000 in October 1992 according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics [BLS, 1993]. Employment has also declined in government-owned
shipyards. In 1990 the five largest firms employed 81,000 workers while the
12 largest firms (all with at least 1,000 workers) employed 98,000 workers
[Dept. of Transportation, 1990].

The largest percentage of asbestos work is performed in major shipyards
[OSHA, 1991 (Ocken, p. 395)]. OSHA and CONSAD identified a range of 13 to 23
major shipyards as potentially affected by the revision to the asbestos
standard [OSHA, 1994]. These establishments employ approximately 74,000 to
80,500 workers, of which an estimated three percent, or 2,220 to 2,415
workers, perform maintenance and repair activities [RTI, 1985; OSHA, 1994].

As shown in Table 2, OSHA analyzed impacts in two areas of ship repair:

wet removal/repair and dry removal/repair. Dry removal and repair occur in
ship compartments, such as in nuclear powered vessels, where wet methods are
infeasible. Based on OSHA and CONSAD's profile of the ship repair industry,
OSHA estimates that 18 shipyards, employing 985 workers, are affected by the
revised standard.

"Market conditions in the shipbuilding industry." During the 1980s, the
shipbuilding industry experienced a sharp decline in output due to (1)
competition from subsidized foreign shipbuilders; (2) decreased demand for
new ships caused by excess supply; (3) the elimination of some subsidies for
U.S. shipbuilders; and (4) a relaxation of the requirements for foreign ships
entering the U.S. commercial fleet. No commercial ships were built in the
United States between 1985 and 1990, and only four have been built or under
construction since 1990. However, due to the requirements of the Jones Act,
American shipyards still build all vessels used in domestic commerce --
smaller ships, barges, and tugboats. Industry forecasts also predict that the
demand for commercial ships will "increase significantly" during the 1990s
due to the need for replacement of an aging world merchant fleet [U.S.
Industrial Outlook, 1993]. It remains to be seen what fraction of this
business may be won by U.S. shipbuilders.

In contrast to the declining market for commercial ship construction, the
market for ship repair and conversion work is strong. The U.S. Industrial
Outlook reports that "the demand for some ship repair services * * * exceeds
what is currently available in certain areas." In addition, investments by
U.S. shipyards to improve, expand, and modernize repairing facilities are
proceeding. Investment in fiscal year 1992 was $215 million, contrasted with
$176 million for purchases of plant, machinery and equipment in 1991 [U.S.
Industrial Outlook, 1993].

Asbestos in Construction

The construction industry is the principal market for asbestos materials and
products in the United States, accounting for 68 percent of the asbestos
consumed in 1992 [Bureau of Mines, 1993]. Asbestos products used in
construction include asbestos-cement pipe, asbestos-cement sheet, coatings,
compounds, packings, and roofing products.

With the decline in consumption of raw asbestos in U.S. manufacturing
coupled with the introduction of asbestos substitutes into product design,
the asbestos construction industry has shifted away from activities
associated with installing asbestos products. Instead, in the last decade
concern over the public risk presented by damaged asbestos in place, as well
as the practical need to maintain aging interior sections in commercial and
residential buildings, has directed the asbestos construction industry to the
areas of demolition, removal, and renovation. In addition, custodial
personnel occasionally come into contact with asbestos during their
housekeeping duties.

The construction industry is comprised of a large number of firms:

approximately 536,300 establishments in 1987, employing just over 5 million
workers [Dept. of Commerce, 1990b]. Of this industry total, 423,500
establishments, or 79 percent, employed fewer than 10 workers, while only 9.3
percent had 20 or more employees. The prevalence of small firms is partially
related to the ease of entry into the construction industry. To establish a
construction firm generally requires minimal capitalization; many firms, in
fact, achieve success by carrying little overhead and adapting their services
to industry trends. Furthermore, a sizable share of proprietorships in the
industry are composed of self-employed individuals who contract their own
services, and who shift back and forth from employee status to
self-employment status as opportunities change.

In construction, unlike manufacturing, the typical industry end-product is
highly differentiated and is produced at a site selected by the purchaser.
Due to this degree of product specificity, each worksite usually has its own
pattern of material use, building methods, and number and mix of workers.
Thus, considerable variation may exist in actual worker use of, or contact
with, asbestos materials and products. Although the occasional use of
asbestos products appears to be the norm -- particularly given the changing
material use patterns in new construction -- some workers (e.g. asbestos pipe
installers and abatement/removal specialists) continually come into contact
with asbestos materials and products.

Worker mobility, resulting in considerable shifting among both job sites and
employers is another characteristic of the industry. Workers tend to identify
with their craft or occupation, not with their employer [Lange and Mills,
1979]. Cyclical changes in the economy and seasonal work patterns cause
variability of job opportunities, with a large portion of workers frequently
entering and exiting the industry. Collectively, these factors make it very
difficult to estimate the total number of workers exposed to asbestos and the
duration of their exposure.

Based upon profiles of the asbestos construction industry by OSHA and CONSAD
[OSHA, 1994; CONSAD, 1990], OSHA in this final RIA has estimated the number
of construction workers potentially exposed in the areas affected by the
standard -- that is, where asbestos products are installed, replaced,
removed, or managed in place. Affected construction activities are found
within the following general sectors: new construction; abatement and
demolition; building renovation and remodeling; routine maintenance; and
custodial work. Table 3 presents OSHA's profile of the population at risk
from occupational exposure to asbestos in construction. Below are
descriptions of the construction activities categorized within the general
sectors affected by OSHA's revised asbestos standard.

Table 3. -- Estimated Population at Risk From Occupational Exposure to
Asbestos During New Construction, Abatement, Renovation, Routine

Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis,based on OSHA, 1986, and OSHA, 1994

Footnote(a) Totals in this column show the number of full-time-equivalent workers exposed to asbestos at any level

"New construction." New construction activities account for the bulk of
asbestos materials and products consumed in a typical year. Major products
include asbestos-cement pipe, asbestos-cement sheet, coatings and compounds,
and roofing products. As depicted in Table 1, these construction products
comprised over half (19 thousand metric tons) of the total U.S. asbestos
consumption in 1992.(3)

__________

Footnote(3) Total consumption of asbestos-cement sheet was approximated as
50 metric tons for the purpose of this calculation.

"Asbestos-cement pipe." Asbestos-cement pipe (A/C pipe) is used chiefly for
transporting drinking water in a pressurized condition and to provide
drainage for storm water, sewage and other liquid waste. Approximately 90
percent of A/C pipe purchases are of pressure water pipe [AIA, Ex. 117,
1991]. A/C pipe is also used in industrial applications, to carry gaseous
products, and as an electrical conduit for heating, cooling and gas venting
[ICF, 1988].

Use of A/C pipe in the United States is concentrated in the Mountain,
Pacific and Southwest regions. In 1991, the Asbestos Information Association
commented [Ex. 117] that "pre-cut, pre-tapped pipe has received tremendous
marketplace acceptance and represents a large majority of sales." This is
significant because the use of pre-cut, pre-tapped pipe may reduce or
eliminate some types of field fabrication activities.

A/C pipe is composed of 15-25 percent asbestos, 42-53 percent Portland
cement, and 34-40 percent ground silica sand. The use of raw asbestos in the
production of A/C pipe fluctuated somewhat but remained fairly constant
during the mid-1980s (26,100 metric tons in 1983, 37,000 metric tons in 1984,
32,691 metric tons in 1985) [ICF, 1988] but has declined dramatically since:
7,900 metric tons in 1989, 1,700 metric tons in 1992 [Bureau of Mines, 1993].
The use of substitutes for asbestos and the overall slump in new construction
in the early 1990s probably account for much of the decline in asbestos
consumption in A/C pipe. Based on OSHA and CONSAD's profile of the industry,
OSHA estimates that 224 to 2,100 workers, or an average of 1,162 workers, are
exposed to asbestos during installation of A/C pipe.

"Asbestos-cement sheet." Asbestos-cement sheet (A/C sheet) has a variety of
uses as a structural, technical and decorative material in large residential
buildings, electrical utilities, industrial plants, schools, and hospitals.
A/C sheet includes flat sheet, corrugated sheet, and roofing and side
shingles. Of these four main types of A/C sheet, all, as of the date of ICF's
market survey, were produced in the United States with the exception of
corrugated sheet [ICF, 1988]. According to ICF, flat A/C sheet has the
following principal applications:

Asbestos-cement shingles are used as siding and roofing for residential and
commercial buildings. According to results from ICF's market survey, demand
for roofing shingles represents 70 percent of consumption in the A/C shingle
market while demand for siding shingles constitute the remainder of the
market.

A/C sheet may contain anywhere from 15 to 40 percent asbestos, in
combination with cement and, occasionally, silica [Cogley, et al., 1982]. In
recent years, manufacturers have substituted other materials for asbestos in
the production of A/C sheet; meanwhile, due to unit price differences,
alternative construction components such as pre-cast concrete and cement/wood
board have replaced A/C sheet in the building industry [OSHA, 1986].
Together, these factors have contributed to a decline in asbestos consumption
in the A/C sheet market from levels of roughly 11,000 metric tons of raw
asbestos in the early 1980s [OSHA, 1986] to a 1992 consumption of under 100
metric tons (see Table 1). OSHA estimates that, the population at risk during
A/C sheet installation ranges from 270 to 2,160 workers, or an average of
1,215 employees.

"Asbestos abatement and demolition." Increased health concerns regarding the
potential release of asbestos fibers have prompted a desire to remove or
encapsulate such materials in existing buildings. In response to this demand,
a variety of specialty contractors and construction trades have become active
in asbestos abatement, particularly in schools, where EPA regulations have
indirectly generated a large market for this type of service.

The asbestos abatement industry experienced extraordinary growth in the
1980s due to legal, regulatory, economic and health-related factors.
Rifkin-Wernick Associates [Rifkin-Wernick, 1990], specialists in analyzing
the asbestos industry, estimate that combined public and private building
ownership spent $4.2 billion in 1989 for services and products related to
asbestos abatement in their properties. This level of abatement expenditures
represented an increase of 24 percent over levels in 1988. According to
Rifkin-Wernick, asbestos construction activities associated with demolition,
renovation, and operations and maintenance accounted for around 90 percent of
abatement expenditures; the remainder of abatement expenditures satisfied
legal or economic considerations while addressing lower-level safety
concerns.

In early 1990, 2,100 asbestos abatement contractors operated in the United
States under either state certification or some other license. Rifkin-Wernick
estimates that abatement contractors in 1989 employed 161,000 workers, of
which 98,000 were full-time. Firm size in the industry was generally small:
80 percent of contractors employ fewer than 50 people and over half of
asbestos contractors have no part-time employees.

Contractor revenues in 1989 totaled $3.6 billion. Rifkin-Wernick classified
contractors by revenue size and geographic radius of operation. National
contractors are defined as conducting business beyond 1,000 miles of
headquarters and with revenues above $20 million. Regional contractors, in
Rifkin-Wernick's classification system, tend to operate 250 to 1,000 miles
from the main office and earn revenues of $5 million to $20 million. Finally,
local contractors operate primarily within a 250-mile radius of home and earn
under $5 million. Table 4 presents Rifkin-Wernick's 1990 assessment of
contractor market concentration for two earlier years and market projection
for 1994.

Table 4. -- Market Concentration

[1987-1994]

1987

1989

1994 (projected)

Number of Contractors:

National

8

20

15

Regional

100

200

150

Local

1,200

1,872

500

Total

1,308

2,092

665

Revenues ($ Million):

National

$155

$832

$1,050

Regional

362

1,720

2,250

Local

517

1,086

470

Total

1,034

3,638

3,770

Market Share (%)

National

15%

23%

28%

Regional

35%

47%

60%

Local

50%

30%

12%

Total

100%

100%

100%

Revenues Per Contractor ($ Million):

National

$19.3

$41.6

$70.0

Regional

3.6

8.6

15.0

Local

0.4

0.6

0.9

Total

0.8

1.7

5.7

Source: Rifkin-Wernick, 1990

In developing its profile of the abatement and demolition industry, OSHA
[OSHA, 1994], recognized the growth in market specialization observed by
Rifkin-Wernick and other experts. Therefore, OSHA applied lower-bound worker
population estimates to the cost and benefit analysis. For all of abatement
and demolition, OSHA estimates a full-time workforce of 21,295 persons.(4)

__________

Footnote(4) OSHA notes that its estimate for the number of full-time
abatement workers is lower than Rifkin-Wernick's 1989 estimate. OSHA believes
that this discrepancy may possibly be due to three factors: 1) the cyclical
decline in the industry during the recession of 1990-1991 and subsequent slow
recovery; 2) increased specialization among abatement workers and the
adoption of labor-saving technologies and work practices; and 3) the
inclusion of abatement workers in other activity groups within OSHA's
industry profile.

"Renovation and remodeling." The principal general renovation activities
that entail occupational exposure to asbestos are: the demolition of drywall
(including removal of transite panels), the removal of built-up roofing
containing asbestos roofing felts, and the removal of asbestos flooring
products. OSHA and CONSAD [OSHA, 1994] estimate that anywhere from 60,735 to
95,914 workers -- all of whom are full-time professionals -- may be at risk
from asbestos exposure during renovation and remodeling. OSHA believes that
specialization has emerged in the industry to the extent that a lower-bound
estimate of the workforce is appropriate in this impact analysis.
Consequently, OSHA estimates that 60,735 full-time-equivalent workers in
renovation and remodeling of asbestos-containing buildings are affected by
the revised standard.

"Drywall demolition." The occupational exposure to asbestos associated with
the demolition and renovation of drywall results primarily from the release
of asbestos fibers from the spackling, tape, and joint compounds used to
produce a smooth surface across the entire wall. Although the use of asbestos
in drywall tape and spackling compound is now prohibited, asbestos-containing
finishing materials were routinely used in drywall application through the
early 1970s. Thus, the demolition and renovation of drywall in any building
constructed prior to the mid-1970s is likely to expose workers to friable
asbestos.

On occasion, drywall renovation involves contact with sprayed- and
troweled-on fireproofing and other asbestos surfacing material. Information
on the frequency of contact with high-risk asbestos-containing material
during drywall renovation is limited but suggests that a minor percentage of
projects are affected [CONSAD, 1985]. OSHA estimates that 20 percent of
drywall renovations involve contact with high-risk ACM. A breakdown of the
worker population for drywall renovation is given below under BENEFITS.

"Built-up roofing removal." Built up roofs constructed with asbestos roofing
felts generally have long useful lives of 20 or more years. CONSAD [CONSAD,
1990] used Bureau of Mines data on production of roofing felt in the 1960s to
estimate that approximately 80,000 tons of asbestos-containing roofing
products will be removed annually.

"Removal of asbestos flooring products." Asbestos flooring products, also
termed "resilient floor coverings," include vinyl/asbestos floor tile,
asphalt/asbestos floor tile, and sheet flooring backed with asbestos felt.
Asbestos flooring products are estimated to be in over 3.6 million buildings
[EPA, 1984]. Although these floors have a useful life of approximately 25-30
years, they are generally replaced more often [RFCI, 1990].

Routine building maintenance activities can involve exposure to asbestos
because of the presence of products containing asbestos. Worker exposure can
be a result of direct contact with the asbestos materials and products or can
result from disturbance of settled dust in the vicinity of
asbestos-containing materials (for example, when work above a drop ceiling is
performed where asbestos-containing insulation or fireproofing was used).
Maintenance activities that can involve asbestos exposure include: adjustment
or repair of HVAC ductwork or lighting (above a drop ceiling); replacement of
drop ceiling tiles; repair of leaking water or steam pipes; boiler
maintenance or repair activities; and repairs to roofing, drywall or
flooring. Workers at risk during these activities include in-house building
maintenance personnel, contract maintenance crews, and special trades
contractors. Based on an industry profile by CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990], OSHA
estimates that anywhere from 128,867 workers to 740,237 workers are
potentially exposed while performing routine maintenance activities in
public, commercial and residential buildings.

For this economic impact analysis, OSHA assumed that owners of affected
buildings will minimize compliance costs by applying maintenance personnel --
whether in-house or contract -- to asbestos projects on a full-time basis,
where possible. Under this assumption, the absolute number of affected
workers would equal the lower-bound estimate for the population at risk
(128,867 workers). In terms of person-years of exposure (number of persons
exposed over a year of eight-hour days), the lower-bound population at risk
equates to 25,771 full-time-equivalent persons, as shown in Column 3 in Table
3.

Renovation, maintenance, and repair operations comprise a significant
portion of total construction activity. In 1987, receipts from maintenance
and repair operations alone were $50.4 billion, or 10 percent of total
construction receipts [Dept. of Commerce, 1990b].

"Routine maintenance in industrial facilities." In general industry, routine
maintenance and repair can involve the disturbance of asbestos- containing
materials and products (ACM), including such products as gaskets, pipe and
boiler insulation, electronic components and structural building materials.
Asbestos industrial materials and products are most widely used in (1) the
manufacture of malt beverages, paper products, chemicals, petroleum products,
glass and ceramics, iron and steel, and fabricated metal products; (2)
telephone communications; (3) electric utilities; and (4) other public
utilities (gas, water, sanitary services). Occupational exposure to asbestos
fibers can occur among maintenance workers directly involved in disturbance
of ACM as well as among production workers near the maintenance work site.

For this final analysis of the costs and benefits of the revised asbestos
standard, OSHA identified five general types of routine maintenance in
industrial facilities, listed below.

* Gasket removal and installation

* Boiler removal and installation

* Pipe removal and installation

* Miscellaneous maintenance

* Miscellaneous telecommunications maintenance

Miscellaneous maintenance includes the variety of building maintenance
(ceiling work, roofing, drywall, etc.) described above under "Routine
Maintenance in Public, Commercial, and Residential Buildings." Miscellaneous
telecommunications maintenance includes 1) removal of electronic components,
particularly line card resistors, insulated with asbestos and 2) placement or
removal of communications wire and cable.

Table 3 presents the range of workers in general industry potentially
exposed to asbestos during routine maintenance tasks. In this impact
analysis, OSHA assumes that, to minimize compliance costs, affected
establishments will concentrate asbestos maintenance duties among a group of
trained specialists. Shown in Column 3 in the table are OSHA's estimates for
full-time populations at risk for each maintenance activity. For all of
general industry, a total of 2,711 full-time-equivalent persons perform
construction-related duties.

"Custodial work in public, commercial and residential buildings."

Asbestos exposure in public and commercial buildings can occur during a
variety of tasks involving disturbance of asbestos or asbestos-containing
materials, in addition to routine maintenance activities described above.
Custodial work in buildings with ACM can include any of the following types
of activities: sweeping; cleaning; dusting; mopping; vacuuming; stripping and
buffing of vinyl-asbestos floor tile; and clean-up after asbestos removal or
other significant asbestos construction work.

A recent EPA-sponsored study of asbestos exposure among custodial workers in
Missouri reports frequency and duration of custodial activities [Wickman, et
al., 1992]. Modeling a custodial worker profile on the Missouri study and on
building survey data from EPA, OSHA and CONSAD estimated the range of workers
potentially at risk [OSHA, 1994]. OSHA estimates that anywhere from 1.1
million to 3.7 million workers are at risk from asbestos exposure during
custodial work.

OSHA believes that there is presently little specialization in asbestos
custodial work and that the actual number of workers at risk approximates the
average of the lower-bound and upper-bound number of workers. In terms of
person-years of exposure over work weeks consisting of eight-hour days, OSHA
estimates that 223,160 full-time-equivalent workers are at risk during
custodial disturbance of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials.

"Custodial work in industrial facilities." Custodial work in industrial
facilities largely resembles custodial work in public, commercial, and
residential buildings and was identically modeled by CONSAD. The workforce at
risk performing custodial activities in industrial facilities ranges from
143,355 to 535,768 workers, as shown in Table 3. Taking the average of this
range and calculating the full-time-equivalent population, OSHA estimates
that 31,442 person-years of exposure occur in general industry annually
during custodial work.

The declared purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970
is "* * * to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the
Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human
resources * * *" Thus, the Act requires the Secretary of Labor, when
promulgating occupational safety and health standards for toxic materials or
harmful physical agents, to set the standard " * * * that most adequately
assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence,
that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional
capacity * * *" On the basis of this congressional directive, OSHA has
responded to the Court of Appeals by issuing a final revision to the asbestos
standard, the intent of which is to further reduce the adverse health effects
associated with occupational exposure to asbestos. This chapter reviews
regulatory and non-regulatory alternatives that OSHA considered and found to
be inadequate for full remediation of the occupational hazards of asbestos.

Private Markets and Occupational Health

Economic theory suggests that the need for government regulation is greatly
reduced where private markets work efficiently and effectively to allocate
health and safety resources. The theory typically assumes perfectly
competitive labor markets where workers, having perfect knowledge of job
risks and being perfectly mobile among jobs, command wage premiums that fully
compensate for any risk of future harm. Thus, theoretically, the costs of
occupational injury and illness are borne initially by the firms responsible
for the hazardous workplace conditions and, ultimately, by the consumers who
pay higher prices for the final goods and services produced by these firms.
With all costs internalized, private employers have an incentive to reduce
hazards wherever the cost of hazard abatement is less than the cost of the
expected injury or illness. The resultant level of safety and health is
considered "efficient" in the sense that it minimizes the sum of the costs of
hazard prevention and of injury or illness. Perfectly competitive labor
markets, however, do not exist for many industrial markets. OSHA, therefore,
believes that it must take appropriate actions to provide greater worker
protection against exposures to toxic substances.

Evidence indicates that market forces have not been effective in reducing
excessive occupational exposure to asbestos, thereby contributing to the
development of diseases related to it. In spite of the hazards associated
with asbestos, the social costs of production have not been internalized, in
part because of market imperfections and the existence of externalities.
Consequently, the amount of protection that the private market will offer to
workers differs from the socially desired level, for the following reasons.

First, evidence on occupational health hazards in general suggests that, in
the absence of immediate or clear-cut danger, employees and employers have
little incentive to seek or provide information on the potential long-term
effects of exposure. When relevant information is provided, however,
employers and employees might still find informed decision making a difficult
task, especially where long latency periods precede the development of
disease. Moreover, if signs and symptoms are nonspecific -- that is, if an
illness could be job-related or could have other causes -- employees and
employers may not link disease with exposure.

Second, even if workers were fully informed of the health risks associated
with exposure to asbestos, many face limited employment options.
Non-transferability of occupational skills and high regional unemployment
rates sharply reduce a worker's expectation of obtaining alternative
employment quickly or easily. A worker employed in resurfacing automobile
brakes, for example, could find it difficult to apply occupational skills to
a new job in searching for a safer workplace. In many regions of the country,
the practical choice for workers is not between a safe job and a better
paying but more hazardous position, but simply between employment and
unemployment at the prevailing rates of pay and risk. In addition to the fear
of substantial income loss from prolonged periods of unemployment, the high
costs of relocation, the reluctance to break family and community ties, and
the growth of institutional factors such as pension plans and seniority
rights serve to elevate the cost of job transfer.

In addition to the market imperfections, externalities result in employers
and employees settling for an inefficiently low level of protection from
toxic substances. For the competitive market to function efficiently, only
workers and their employers should be affected by the level of safety and
health provided in market transactions. In the case of occupational safety
and health, however, society shares part of the financial burden of
occupationally induced diseases, including the costs of premature death,
excess sickness, and disability. Individuals who suffer from occupationally
related illness are cared for and compensated by society through taxpayer
support of social programs, including welfare, Social Security, and Medicare.
These combined factors of labor market imperfections and the existence of
externalities prevent the market from delivering an optimal supply of
healthful working conditions in industries where asbestos hazards exist.

Tort Liability and Asbestos Litigation

Greater reliance on the use of liability under tort law is one of the
examples of a non-regulatory alternative identified and set forth by the
Office of Management and Budget guidelines for implementing Executive Orders
12866 and 12291. Prosser [Prosser, 1971] describes a tort, in part, as a
"civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the court will
provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages," although he says that
"a really satisfactory definition has yet to be found."

If the tort system effectively applied, it would allow a worker whose health
has been adversely affected by occupational exposure to asbestos to sue and
recover damages from the employer. Furthermore, the tort system would shift
the liability of direct costs of occupational disease from the worker to the
firm under certain specific circumstances. The tort system has had limited
success in shifting the cost of occupational disease. The limitations of the
system are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Asbestos product liability litigation as a means of reducing worker exposure
to asbestos has proven effective in some areas, but cumbersome to resolve.
The difficulties are inherent in the litigation process as it relates to
asbestos products and in the nature of the diseases associated with asbestos.

With very limited exceptions, however, the tort system is not a viable
alternative in dealings between employees and their employers. All states
have legislation providing that Workers' Compensation is either the exclusive
or principal remedy available to employees against their employers. Thus,
tort law can only be applied to third-party suppliers of a hazardous
substance. It is often difficult, however, to demonstrate cause, which is a
necessary prerequisite for the successful application of tort liability
against these suppliers.

First, knowledge of the worker exposure must exist. The worker and/ or the
physician must be aware of both the magnitude and duration of exposure to
asbestos and the causal link between the disease and the occupational
exposure. Furthermore, it could be extremely difficult to isolate the role of
occupational exposures in causing the disease, especially if workers are
exposed to many toxic substances. Second, the liable party must be
identifiable, but workers may have several employers over a working lifetime.
Third, the scientific and medical evidence available to support the
contention that the disease was caused by job-related exposure must withstand
judicial standards for proof of causality. This task is very difficult
because of the long latency periods associated with asbestos-related
diseases.

The costs associated with producing information and with litigation itself
may be quite substantial. First, information is a public good, which means
that once produced it can be transmitted inexpensively to any number of
individuals without diminishing the quality or quantity of the information.
It is, therefore, difficult to control distribution once the information is
produced. A producer of information may find that information produced at
great expense can be acquired freely by potential customers, and that,
consequently, the market for the information has virtually disappeared. As a
result, public goods are typically underproduced relative to what is
considered economically efficient. This general undersupply of information
adversely affects the workers' awareness of the cause of their illness and
thus reduces the likelihood that they will pursue tort liability suits.

Second, legal proceedings impose costs on both plaintiffs and defendants.
Victims of torts must incur legal fees associated with bringing about court
action. In deciding whether to sue, the victim must be sure that the size of
the claim will be large enough to cover legal expenses. In effect, the
plaintiff is likely to face substantial transaction costs in the form of
legal expenses. These are commonly set at a 33 percent contingency for the
plaintiff's lawyer, plus legal expenses. The accused firm must also pay for
its defense. A report prepared by the Research Triangle Institute [RTI,
1982], contains some data pertaining to legal costs and the size of awards.
One investigator, for example, found that an average ratio of legal costs to
proceeds was 37 percent for a sample of cases. The data, however, do not
separate legal fees paid by the defendants and plaintiffs.

The majority of occupational disease tort activity has involved workers
exposed to asbestos. These employees could avoid the exclusive remedy of
Workers' Compensation by suing suppliers, whereas asbestos exposures are best
controlled by employers.

In a consolidated class-action case in 1990, a Texas court awarded more than
$3.5 million in compensatory damages to 2,366 workers who had been exposed to
asbestos in refineries. Punitive damages were to be awarded on the basis of
gross negligence on the part of the suppliers [Dallas Morning News, 1990].

In 1993, a settlement was reached in a lawsuit involving future personal
injury claims against 20 asbestos product manufacturers represented by the
Center for Claims Resolution (Carlough v. Amchem Products, Inc). It would
provide $1 billion over the next ten years to settle about 100,000 claims as
people exposed to the manufacturers' products contract asbestos-related
conditions. Payments would depend on the type of condition and attorneys'
fees would be capped at 25 percent of each payment [BNA, 1993]. The
settlement was reached by parties aware of the decades-long impasses in
asbestos litigation that have frustrated the tort liability process.

It is unusual for insurance and liability costs to be borne in full by the
specific employer responsible for the risk involved. For firms using
insurance, the premium determination process is such that premiums only
partially reflect changes in risk associated with changes in asbestos or
other hazardous exposures. This results in the so-called "moral hazard
problem," which is the risk that arises from the possible dishonesty or
imprudence of the insured. As the insured has paid for an insurance company
to assume some of his or her risks, he or she has less reason to exercise the
diligence necessary to avoid losses. This transfer of risk is a fundamental
source of imperfection in markets.

For firms that self-insure or carry liability insurance with a large
deductible, the costs of a single claim may be fully borne by the firm. Very
small firms, and large firms with a large number of claims, however, may fail
to meet the full costs by declaring bankruptcy, as has happened with Johns
Manville and other former asbestos producers. The attempts at financial
restructuring by defendants of asbestos litigation further reduce the chances
that workers who contract asbestos-related diseases as employees of these
companies or as employees of companies that used their products will collect
compensation [Washington Post, 1990].

Workers' Compensation

The Workers' Compensation system came about as the result of perceived
inadequacies in liability or insurance systems to compel employers to prevent
occupational disease or compensate workers fully for their losses. This
system was designed to internalize some of the social costs of production,
but in reality it has fallen short of compensating workers adequately for
occupationally related disease. Thus, society shares the burden of
occupationally related adverse health effects, premature mortality, excess
morbidity, and disability through taxpayer support of social programs such as
welfare, Social Security disability payments, and Medicare.

Government Regulations and Rejected Alternative Standards

In order to compensate for market imperfections (some of which are detailed
above), a number of federal and state regulations have been promulgated in
the attempt to improve the allocation of resources. While some of these
regulations may have a limiting effect on occupational exposures to asbestos,
OSHA does not believe that these regulations obviate the need for an OSHA
standard regulating occupational exposure to asbestos.

OSHA's current permissible exposure level (PEL) for asbestos of 0.2 fibers
per cubic centimeter (f/cc) does not eliminate all significant risk to
workers. Given the recent health evidence of carcinogenic and
non-carcinogenic hazards, OSHA believes that to fully protect workers it is
necessary to lower the asbestos PEL and establish ancillary provisions.

For public, commercial, residential and industrial buildings, OSHA rejected,
on the basis of cost and feasibility considerations, alternative approaches
requiring owners to conduct up-front inspections for asbestos-containing
materials or to inspect before ACM is disturbed. These approaches have also
been examined by the Environmental Protection Agency. An analysis by EPA's
contractor [Abt, 1992] projected potential compliance costs of $13.2 billion
to $16.2 billion for an up-front survey approach and potential costs of $3.2
billion to $14.5 billion for an identify-before-disturb option. OSHA's
approach, instead, specifies parameters for making reasonable assumptions
about the presence of asbestos-containing materials within building
components and notifying and protecting maintenance workers, custodians and
building occupants as prescribed elsewhere in the revised standard.

D. Benefits of the Revision to the Final Asbestos Standard Introduction

The inhalation of asbestos fiber has been clearly associated with three
clinical conditions: asbestosis, mesothelioma (a cancer of the lining of the
chest or abdomen), and lung cancer. Studies have also observed increased
gastrointestinal cancer risk. Risk from cancer at other sites, such as the
larynx, pharynx, and kidneys, is also suspected.

Initial exposure limits for asbestos were based on efforts to reduce
asbestosis which was known to be associated with asbestos exposure. The
reduction in cases of asbestosis, however, resulted in workers living long
enough to develop cancers that are now recognized as associated with asbestos
exposure. The following discussion of the benefits associated with a
reduction in exposures, therefore, focuses on the number of cancer cases
avoided within the exposed work force. The results are expressed in terms of
deaths avoided because these cancers almost always result in death.

Methodology

OSHA calculated expected benefits following promulgation of the final
revised asbestos standard for workers employed in the general industry,
shipyards, and construction sectors. In this benefits analysis, the following
types of preventable asbestos-related cancer mortalities were evaluated: (1)
Preventable lung cancers, (2) preventable mesotheliomas, and (3) preventable
gastrointestinal cancers. The risk assessment used to derive OSHA's estimate
of the number of cancers prevented is discussed in Chapter 5 of the
regulatory impact analysis of the 1986 final asbestos standard [OSHA, 1986].
For this analysis, OSHA updated the 1986 risk assessment to include 1991 data
on the gender and age distribution within affected industry sectors [BLS,
1991] and the 1991 mortality rates associated with malignant neoplasms of
respiratory and intrathoracic organs [NCHS, 1993].

The benefits of a reduction in the PEL depend upon current exposure levels,
the number of workers exposed, and the risk associated with each exposure
level. OSHA's estimates for current exposures, the number of full-time
equivalent workers exposed, and the exposure levels after compliance with the
revision to the final rule are presented in Table 5 for general industry and
shipyards and Table 6 for construction.

Table 5. -- Estimated Occupational Exposure to Asbestos andReduction in Cancer Risk in General Industry andShipyards as a Result of the Final Revisionto the Standard

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on CONSAD, 1990, Table 3.2, OSHA 1986, Table V-1, and the rulemaking record

Table 6. -- Estimated Occupational Exposure to Asbestos and Reduction in Cancer Risk In Construction As A Result Of The Final Revision To The Standard

(For Table 6, see printed copy)

OSHA calculated annual preventable cancers associated with the revised
standard through a five-step procedure. First, OSHA estimated baseline
occupational exposure levels -- in terms of 8-hour time-weighted average
fiber levels -- for all affected sectors using data from the record and from
previous asbestos regulatory impact analyses. Then, applying the
OSHA/Nicholson risk assessment model to baseline exposures and the associated
populations at risk, OSHA calculated baseline cancers among affected workers.
In the third step, OSHA estimated occupational exposure levels as a result of
compliance with the final standard, using assigned protection factors for
designated controls. OSHA then projected total residual cancers following
promulgation of the standard. Finally, OSHA calculated the number of
compliance-related preventable cancers by subtracting the number of residual
cancers from the number of baseline cancers.

Occupational Exposure Profile

For each sector affected by the revised asbestos standard, OSHA assessed
current occupational exposures using data from past regulatory impact
analyses and the rulemaking records for this final standard and for previous
OSHA asbestos standards. Principal sources of exposure data for this final
RIA were Economic and Technological Profile Related to OSHA's Revised
Permanent Asbestos Standard for the Construction Industry and Asbestos
Removal and Routine Maintenance Projects in General Industry prepared by
OSHA's contractor CONSAD Research Corporation [CONSAD, 1985]; Economic
Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the OSHA Asbestos Standards for
Construction and General Industry, also by CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990]; OSHA's 1986
final asbestos regulatory impact analysis [OSHA, 1986]; and OSHA's regulatory
analysis of the excursion limit [OSHA, 1988].

Average exposures and the range of exposures reported in CONSAD [CONSAD,
1985, 1990] and OSHA [1986] were developed from a review of the record for
the rulemaking proceeding that led to promulgation of the current OSHA
asbestos standard. Baseline exposures described in the literature and
reported by CONSAD in 1985 generally reflected the use of minimal engineering
controls and the virtual absence of respiratory protection. These baseline
exposures were reported by OSHA in its 1986 RIA and served to establish
baseline risk estimates for affected workers prior to compliance with the
final standard promulgated in 1986. In its 1986 RIA, OSHA assumed that the
controls implied by compliance with the 1986 standard would result in
specified rates of effectiveness and would lead to benefits in preventable
cancers.

In this final RIA for the revised asbestos standard, OSHA developed an
exposure profile for affected occupational groups using representative data
from the 1986 RIA, from CONSAD reports [1985, 1990] and from the rulemaking
record. For each affected sector, OSHA estimated baseline exposures using the
following assumptions: (1) Where reasonable and appropriate, engineering
controls and work practices assigned in the 1986 RIA were assumed to be in
current use; (2) where engineering controls and work practices were not
sufficient to reduce maximum exposures to a PEL of 0.2 f/cc and an excursion
level of 1.0 f/ cc, OSHA assumed that the least-cost respiratory protection
would be applied. OSHA's baseline exposure profile for this revision to the
asbestos standard thus reflects industry application of controls, work
practices and respirators to achieve permissible limits established under the
OSHA 1986 and 1988 rulemakings.

Table 5 presents average baseline exposure levels for general industry and
shipyards and Table 6 presents average baseline exposure levels for
construction. Tables 5 and 6, in addition, show average baseline exposure
levels in the absence of respiratory protection and other primary controls
and work practices (Column 2 in Table 5, Column 3 in Table 6), taken from
representative data in the rulemaking record (see [CONSAD, 1985] and [CONSAD,
1984]). Also shown in Table 6 are representative exposure levels (Column 4)
in the absence of respiratory protection. Fiber levels prior to respirator
use were estimated by applying, to potential mean exposure levels (Column 3),
protection factors for wet methods, glove bags and other controls judged
currently in use, at hypothetical application levels of 100 percent.

Mean exposures in nearly all sectors are estimated to be at or below the
current PEL and excursion limit, consistent with the assumptions in the 1986
RIA and 1988 excursion limit analysis of 100 percent compliance with the
final standards. For most of the sectors presented in the tables, OSHA's
estimated current exposure levels were determined by applying, to baseline
exposures in the absence of controls, protection factors ranging from 10 to
1000, adjusted to reflect current application of controls. In that real-world
application of engineering controls and work practices is under 100 percent
in nearly all asbestos construction sectors, mean current exposure levels
(Column 5) can exceed representative (hypothetical) fiber levels absent
respirators (Column 4).

Also shown in Tables 5 and 6 are OSHA's estimated exposure levels following
the final revision to the standard. OSHA projected exposure levels for each
affected General Industry, Shipyards, and Construction activity by applying
protection factors to average baseline exposures. OSHA calculated protection
factors for each activity by assuming that controls have a multiplicative
effect in reducing exposures, that is, the cumulative protection provided by
a set of controls is the product of individual protection factors. OSHA
assigned protection factors to all significant controls and calculated
cumulative protection factors for all affected sectors. Cumulative protection
factors were then applied to baseline exposures in order to determine
exposures resulting from compliance with the final revised standard. As shown
in Column 3 in Table 5 and in Column 5 in Table 6, projected exposures are
quite low (some below the level of detection), commensurate with the high
degree of protection provided by the controls required by, or, in some cases,
implied by the revised standard.

Estimates of Cancers Prevented, by Industry

"Benefits to workers in direct contact with asbestos." Tables 5 and 6
present OSHA's estimated annual benefits to employees affected by the revised
standard. Quantified benefits represent the total of avoided cases of death
from lung cancers, mesothelioma, and gastrointestinal cancers. In general
industry and shipyards, OSHA projects that wider use of engineering controls,
work practices and respiratory protection will result in 2.1 avoided cancer
deaths. In construction, expected benefits total 40.5 avoided cancers. Of
these total avoided deaths resulting from compliance with the revised
construction standard, 26.3 deaths will be avoided through protection of
personnel directly exposed to asbestos-containing material. However, OSHA's
analysis does not quantify benefits among those workers that may be
secondarily exposed while present at sites where asbestos work is being done.
Among workers secondarily exposed are construction tradespersons -- for
example, plumbers, electricians, and ceiling tile installers -- whose
activities can be complementary to, or immediately succeed, asbestos work.
Since OSHA's revised asbestos standard will reduce ambient asbestos levels at
these sites, any exposure among these workers would also be reduced.

In custodial work in industrial buildings and in commercial and residential
buildings, where 13.5 avoided cancers are projected, estimated baseline
average exposures (0.046 f/cc) lie below the revised PEL and are derived from
data in the asbestos exposure literature [Wickman, et al. 1992]. OSHA's
estimate of current exposures to custodians and other building service
workers recognizes that these workers may not be receiving the protection
afforded other "construction" workers who encounter asbestos on a more
frequent basis. Service workers may, in fact, at times be exposed to asbestos
at levels exceeding the current PEL and excursion limit. OSHA believes that
employees performing custodial duties such as cleaning, sweeping, dusting,
vacuuming and floor maintenance presently receive minimal protection from
asbestos exposure. This revised asbestos standard explicitly addresses risks
to employees performing custodial tasks; consequently, in this final analysis
OSHA examined the occupational risks and estimated the expected benefits to
service workers in industrial, commercial and residential buildings.

"Long-term exposures to building occupants." Data from the asbestos exposure
literature reveal that ambient outdoor exposures to asbestos are quite low,
averaging roughly 0.00007 f/cc. Regarding indoor exposures, the Health
Effects Institute -- Asbestos Research reports that for 1,377 air samples
from 198 different buildings with asbestos-containing materials (ACM), mean
exposures were on the order of 0.00027 f/cc, with 90th and 95th percentiles
of 0.0007 f/cc and 0.0014 f/cc [HEI-AR, 1991].

The HEI-AR report indicates that improper handling of asbestos fibers can
contribute significantly to higher exposure levels to building occupants,
even after completion of all asbestos removal jobs at a building. Of 18
building projects where interior perimeter samples were taken, asbestos
levels increased in 12 buildings after abatement. The higher exposures were
attributed to leakages in glove bags and improper work practices. While the
effect of these removal efforts on exposures varied widely, some exposures
increased by a factor of 750 [HEI-AR, 1991, p. 5-30]. In at least one case, a
building with previously non-detectable asbestos levels later was found to
have detectable levels of airborne asbestos.

OSHA believes that the controls mandated by the standard -- such as negative
pressure enclosures, wet methods, critical barriers, and HEPA vacuums, to
name a few of the more protective controls -- not only should help lower
exposures to employees working in and around them, but should also be nearly
100 percent effective in preventing migration of stray asbestos. Controls
required by the revised standard are therefore expected to enhance protection
of service workers and building occupants. While any building owner can
choose to have ACM removed from a property, owners of buildings with higher
concentrations of asbestos, and therefore greater exposure potential for
building employees and occupants, are relatively more likely to opt for
removal.

Low-level asbestos concentrations can become elevated and remain elevated
for long periods of time, as residual asbestos is disturbed. Recent long-term
data suggest that after a year's time, exposure levels cease to fall and may
actually rise [Wall Street Journal, 1993]. If new asbestos fibers are
continually introduced to the general building environment, background
asbestos levels could remain elevated and potentially increase.

Based on the Environmental Protection Agency's 1984 survey of buildings
[EPA, 1984], OSHA estimates that approximately 156 million maintenance and
custodial projects occur annually in 648,000 commercial and residential
buildings in which friable asbestos may be disturbed [OSHA, 1994]. Buildings
containing friable asbestos constitute less than 20 percent of all buildings
with asbestos-containing materials and are believed to have the highest
exposure levels. Applying data from the Energy department and Census bureau,
OSHA estimates that an average of 18 employees per building are at risk
annually from stray asbestos exposures in commercial buildings with friable
asbestos, yielding an estimated total population of 11.7 million employees
(648,000 buildings x 18 employees per building) [Dept. of Energy, 1986;
Dept. of Commerce, 1993]. In this analysis OSHA assumed, based on data from
HEI-AR on the distribution of asbestos exposures in public buildings, that
higher-risk buildings have a mean current baseline exposure of 0.0014 f/cc
(95th percentile of HEI-AR data), in the absence of OSHA-mandated controls.
OSHA further assumed that the use of OSHA controls would lower mean
background asbestos exposures to levels (0.00035 f/cc) projected by OSHA for
custodial workers. Applying these exposure levels to the asbestos risk model,
OSHA estimated that 14.2 cancers would be prevented annually among building
occupants. It should be noted that this estimate is based solely on exposures
to employees working in commercial and residential buildings and does not
include exposures to residents and other non-employees, such as students, who
may also be exposed while in these buildings.

Other Health Benefits

"Asbestosis." Applying pre- and post-regulation exposures to the asbestosis
risk model detailed in the 1986 RIA, OSHA estimates that compliance with the
revised final rule will prevent approximately 14 cases of disabling
asbestosis annually, among workers directly exposed to asbestos in general
industry, shipyards, and construction. In addition, non-quantified benefits
of avoided cases of asbestosis are anticipated for building occupants and
others secondarily exposed. As these cases represent disabilities and not
deaths, they are not included in the total estimated benefits. Asbestosis
cases often lead to tremendous societal costs in terms of health care, worker
productivity, and in the quality of life to the affected individual. Their
prevention, therefore, would have a positive economic effect.

"Reduction of solvent exposures." Presently, approximately 25 percent of
auto service establishments rely upon solvent sprays to control asbestos
exposure. The most commonly used solvent has been 1-1-1 trichloroethane, a
neurotoxin. OSHA attempted to establish a short-term exposure limit for this
substance in the 1989 Air Contaminants rulemaking [54 FR 2333], but that
rulemaking was stayed by the courts for technical reasons. The revision to
the final asbestos rule, by discouraging the use of solvent spray as a
control method, will prevent peak trichloroethane exposures to over 150,000
workers. Moreover, 1-1-1 trichloroethane, a chlorofluorocarbon, has been
linked with depletion of the ozone layer, thereby possibly contributing to
development of skin cancers. Partly as a result of this, some automotive
service establishments have switched to a spray based on perchloroethylene, a
flammable carcinogen. OSHA believes that as these establishments select
control technologies that are feasible alternatives to solvent spray, there
will be reduced risks of cancer and fires (from rags contaminated with
solvent) as a consequence of the revision to the standard.

Economic Benefits

"Building reoccupation." Significant economic benefits may be derived from
lowering asbestos exposures to long-term building occupants. The more rapidly
that building owners, whether private or public, can put their
asbestos-contaminated building areas back into use, the sooner they can
derive explicit or implicit "rental" value. For example, the HEI-AR report
discusses an asbestos abatement job at a college building with pre-abatement
exposure levels of 0.0002 f/cc [HEI-AR, 1991, p. 5-37]. Shortly after
abatement, exposure levels of 0.065 f/cc were measured. After 26 weeks,
exposure levels were measured at 0.0008 f/cc. Reoccupation occurred after 35
weeks, when exposures had decreased to 0.0004 f/cc. In this example, the
building was not deemed usable for eight months, until exposures began to
approach pre-abatement levels.

EPA's asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) require that asbestos be lowered to specified levels (although not
as low as pre-abatement levels) before certain buildings can be reoccupied.
These requirements have been built into many asbestos abatement contracts for
liability reasons. OSHA calculated, as a hypothetical example, that if
reoccupation of portions of 5,000 office buildings, with an annual rental
value of $100,000 each, were delayed for 6 months in order for asbestos
levels to settle, there would be a deadweight economic loss of $250 million
to building owners and society.

"Asbestos liability savings." As discussed in the section on REGULATORY AND
NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES, asbestos liability has become a major area of
tort litigation. Roughly $8 billion has been spent on asbestos litigation in
the last decade [Wall Street Journal, 1992; OSHA, 1986]. The dollar amount of
awards has exploded in the last decade. Industry observers forecast that up
to $80 billion will be spent on asbestos abatement over the next 20 years,
largely as a result of a fear of lawsuits [Wall Street Journal, 1992].

Building owners commission asbestos removal in an attempt to eliminate, or
at least reduce, the probability of future lawsuits. Although the likelihood
of future lawsuits is uncertain, building owners presumably calculate that
the "expected" cost of such lawsuits would run over $4 billion a year, on
average (using the 20-year forecast given above). If an individual building
owner spends $50,000 to remove the asbestos from a building to avert
potential future lawsuits, the owner may be implicitly calculating that such
an expenditure will effectively eliminate a 5 percent chance that the owner
will have to pay out over $1 million in a lawsuit.

Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that such attempts to reduce the
probability of lawsuits, in the absence of proper protections, may be in
vain. As discussed elsewhere in this BENEFITS section, recent evidence
suggests that such removal attempts, in the absence of proper protections,
may actually increase building occupants' exposure to asbestos. Ultimately,
exposure to asbestos is the impetus for lawsuits. While it might be arguable,
from an exposure standpoint, that the building owner's most economical choice
would be to encapsulate existing asbestos, the path of minimizing liability
is driving many building owners to actually remove the asbestos. It appears
that successful avoidance of liability is guaranteed only by taking all
feasible measures to minimize exposures to occupants during removal. Thus,
spending an additional $5,000 for worker health to complete a $50,000 removal
operation could ultimately prevent a $1 million lawsuit.

This analysis suggests, then, that the asbestos standard's requirements for
engineering controls and work practices, including the use of negative
pressure enclosures and other isolation efforts, if successful in averting
lawsuits, would have a market value of upwards of $4 billion a year (the
minimum value of averting lawsuits). Note that there need not actually be
over $4 billion a year in lawsuits; the market behavior of owners willing to
pay for asbestos abatement simply reflects the market value to those owners
of minimizing the likelihood of lawsuits, in effect acting as a type of
insurance policy. Moreover, as discussed above, it is not necessary that such
efforts be 100 percent successful in preventing lawsuits -- the estimated
effectiveness in reducing the probability or value of potential lawsuits
possesses considerable value. Additionally, it is not necessary that such
controls dramatically reduce exposures to building occupants, although OSHA's
analysis indicates that they will, as long as it is established that all
feasible measures were taken to minimize asbestos exposures to building
occupants so that owner negligence cannot be the grounds of a lawsuit. If
instituting the asbestos controls mandated by the OSHA standard were only
marginally effective in reducing the probability of lawsuits, say by 10
percent, the use of these preventative measures would still possess a value
of over $400 million.

Finally, asbestos removal efforts reflect concern over liability claims from
building occupants, and perhaps custodians and maintenance personnel. It does
not include the value of prevented claims from workers who must remove the
asbestos. The revised asbestos standard eliminates significant risk to the
extent feasible, as defined by law, and thereby minimizes secondary liability
created by attempts to minimize primary liability.

E. Technological Feasibility and Compliance Costs

This section examines the technological feasibility and estimated costs of
compliance for the final revised asbestos standard.

Technological Feasibility

"General industry." OSHA's 1986 Regulatory Impact Analysis [OSHA, 1986]
described in detail the controls that would be necessary in order to achieve
a PEL of 0.2 f/cc in each of the affected sectors in general industry. OSHA
determined that compliance with the 0.2 f/cc PEL was feasible through the use
of wet methods, engineering controls, and housekeeping practices. In
addition, for the following operations compliance with the PEL of 0.2 f/cc
was generally not achievable without the use of respirators: the dry
mechanical process in A/C pipe manufacturing and the dry mechanical, wet
mechanical, and nuclear ripout processes in ship repair. Compliance with the
1.0 f/cc excursion limit promulgated in the 1988 rulemaking was also expected
to lead to occasional respirator use in high-exposure activities throughout
primary and secondary manufacturing [OSHA, 1988].

For the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc, some manufacturing operations will need to
supplement engineering controls and work practices with respiratory
protection. In all, 2,345 workers (or less than 1 percent of the 682,685
workers exposed in all affected industry sectors) in general industry are
expected to need respirators at least part of the workday in order to
maintain exposures below the revised PEL. Since all affected employers in
general industry will be able to comply with the proposed PEL through the use
of engineering controls or, where necessary, respirators, OSHA concludes that
the proposed PEL is technologically feasible.

In addition to respirators, ancillary controls will also be needed in
affected industry/process groups as a result of the lowering of the PEL.
These controls include:

* Regulated areas;

* Disposable protective clothing and gloves;

* Changerooms and lockers;

* Shower rooms;

* Lunch areas; and

* Annual update of the written compliance program.

All ancillary controls required by the revised general industry standard are
currently in extensive use throughout industry and are therefore
technologically feasible.

Paragraph (k)(7) Care of asbestos-containing flooring material, prohibits
for the first time, sanding and high-speed (greater than 300 RPM) stripping
of floor material. This new housekeeping paragraph also requires that
burnishing and dry buffing of asbestos-containing flooring be performed only
when a finish on the flooring is sufficient to prevent contact with ACM.
Evidence from the record indicates that many building maintenance personnel
are currently meeting these requirements (Tr. 2/7/91 at 4256-4270, Ex. 7-91).
Therefore, new Paragraph (k)(7) is technologically feasible.

Lastly, the final revision to the current standard requires certain
engineering controls and work practices for brake and clutch repair and
services. These requirements include the mandatory use of a negative pressure
enclosure/HEPA vacuum method, a low pressure/wet cleaning method, or an
alternate method capable of reducing exposure levels to or below levels
achieved by the enclosure/HEPA vacuum method. Brake shops performing fewer
than six brake or clutch repair jobs per week are permitted to use Method [D]
Wet Methods in revised Appendix F of 1910.1001. According to the National
Automobile Dealers Association, both the enclosure/HEPA vacuum method and the
low pressure/wet cleaning method are currently in use throughout the
automotive brake and clutch repair industry (Ex. 7-104); therefore, the
revised control requirements for brake and clutch repair are judged by OSHA
to be technological feasible.

"Construction." The evaluation of technological feasibility in construction
focused on the various combinations of engineering controls, work practices,
and respiratory protection necessary to reduce current exposures to achieve
compliance with the final PEL of 0.1 f/cc. In addition, OSHA examined a
number of engineering controls, work practices, and ancillary requirements
which will directly and indirectly contribute to reducing employee exposures.
Exposures to asbestos in the construction industry were classified into six
activity categories:

* "New construction" -- including the installation of asbestos/cement (A/C)
pipe and sheet. New construction falls under Class III asbestos work as
defined in the revised asbestos standard.

* "Asbestos abatement" -- including both asbestos removal and encapsulation
with a polymeric coating, or enclosure. Asbestos abatement falls under
asbestos work Classes I and III as defined in the revised standard.

* "Demolition" -- involving asbestos removal prior to the demolition of all
or part of a building or industrial facility that contains asbestos
materials. Demolition falls under asbestos work Class I as defined in the
revised standard.

* "General building renovation and remodeling" -- including drywall
demolition involving the removal of pipe and boiler insulation, fireproofing,
drywall tape and spackling, acoustical plasters, transite panels, built-up
roofing and flooring products. Renovation and remodeling generally involve
contact with generic building materials and would therefore fall under
asbestos work Class II as defined in the revised standard.

* "Routine facility maintenance in commercial/residential buildings and in
general industry" -- including maintenance and repair activities involving
disturbance of asbestos materials and products (for example, repair of
leaking steam pipes, ceiling tiles, roofing, drywall, or flooring; or
adjustment of HVAC equipment above suspended ceilings). Routine maintenance
falls under Class III asbestos work as defined in the revised standard when
asbestos-containing materials (ACM) are disturbed during the maintenance
activity; and under Class IV asbestos work as defined in the revised standard
when maintenance involves minor, incidental contact with ACM.

* "Custodial Work" -- including sweeping, dusting and other housekeeping
duties that occasionally expose building maintenance and custodial personnel
to asbestos. Custodial work falls under Class IV asbestos work as defined in
the revised standard.

To support the regulatory impact analysis for the 1986 asbestos standard,
CONSAD derived baseline exposure levels for each construction activity from a
database that included personal and area air samples, OSHA inspection
reports, expert testimony, and various published reports [CONSAD, 1990]. The
technological feasibility assessments for this final revised standard were
influenced by expected exposure reduction following the promulgation of the
1986 asbestos standard, and by a review of the literature, including
submittals to the OSHA docket (H-033e).

OSHA determined in 1986 that, for a variety of construction activities, it
was feasible to reach the current PEL of 0.2 f/cc through the use of
available engineering controls and work practices (i.e., without the need for
respiratory protection). These construction activities included:

* Asbestos/cement (A/C) pipe installation;

* Asbestos/cement (A/C) sheet installation;

* Floor products installation;

* Plumbing repairs in commercial/residential buildings;

* Floor repairs in commercial/residential buildings;

* Gasket removal and installation in general industry; and

* Pipe insulation repairs in general industry.

For the remaining activities, respiratory protection was necessary in order
to reach the current PEL of 0.2 f/cc. OSHA assumed that employers would
choose the most cost-effective approach and supply their workers with
half-mask supplied-air respirators (or full-facepiece supplied-air
respirators for asbestos removal projects) in order to eliminate the need for
exposure monitoring [OSHA, 1986]. Thus, in the 1986 RIA, OSHA assumed that
workers in many higher-risk construction activities would be provided
supplied-air respirators.

OSHA now believes that the prior analytical assumption of widespread use of
supplied-air respirators may not be consistent with field experience. OSHA
believes that supplied-air respirators are used in many construction
activities -- particularly removal and demolition, where exposures tend to be
highest. For other construction activities where peak exposures are generally
lower and episodic, many abatement and maintenance personnel appear to be
complying with the current standard using a combination of engineering
controls, work practices and lighter respirators.

Construction employers also appear to meet the requirements for daily
monitoring (1926.58(f)(3) in the current standard) by compiling historical
exposure data documenting compliance with the current OSHA PEL during
representative projects. OSHA anticipates that some construction employers
will meet the requirements of revised Paragraph (f) Exposure assessments and
monitoring, through the use of selective initial monitoring to establish an
historical exposure data record, which can form the basis for achieving all
necessary requirements of the standard. Where exposures may exceed levels
documented by objective data, additional respiratory protection may be
necessary, and is judged by OSHA to be technologically feasible based on
field experience and information in the rulemaking record [Corn, 1992;
HEI-AR, 1992].

As in the standard for general industry, OSHA is proposing the prohibition
of high-speed sanding and the use of highly abrasive pads during asbestos
floor tile work. In CONSAD's 1985 study [CONSAD 1985] and in OSHA's 1986 RIA
[OSHA, 1986], exposures during floor tile installation, removal, and sanding
were reported to be generally below 0.2 f/cc when the recommendations of the
Resilient Floor Covering Institute were followed. These recommended practices
included wet sweeping and handling, and the prohibition of power sanding and
blowing asbestos dust. OSHA estimated current exposures in floor repair at
0.024 f/cc under the assumption that the Institute's recommended practices
have been adopted by a majority of establishments. Therefore, the prohibition
of high-speed sanding in the current proposal is not expected to
significantly affect floor repair.

With the final PEL of 0.1 f/cc, additional respiratory protection may be
necessary. Specifically, some projects involving A/C pipe installation, A/C
sheet installation, floor removal, floor repair, large-scale gasket removal,
pipe repair, and custodial work in industrial, commercial and residential
buildings would require the use of half-mask respirators to meet the revised
PEL. In addition, drywall demolition projects may need to upgrade their
respiratory protection to full-facepiece negative-pressure respirators to
meet the lower permissible exposure limit.

Assessing current respirator usage and predicted demand under the revised
standard, OSHA concludes that nearly all construction activities will require
respiratory protection during at least part of the project-day in order to
comply with the 0.1 f/cc PEL. Based on the lower-bound exposure estimates
provided in the literature and reported in CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990, 1985], it
appears that a variety of routine maintenance activities and some abatement
jobs may be able to achieve the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc without respirators.
From its analysis of current exposures, OSHA anticipates that only in
small-scale gasket removal and installation will respiratory protection not
be necessary for most project-days.

The other incremental controls necessary to comply with OSHA's final
asbestos standard, include (depending upon the construction activity):

Based on information in the record and in OSHA's inspection files, OSHA
observes that many construction employers currently apply these controls in
varied combinations and at varied levels of utilization. OSHA estimated that
for construction employers, rates of current compliance range from roughly 20
percent to 80 percent, depending on the control requirement and construction
activity. Therefore, OSHA believes all controls are technologically feasible
for the appropriate construction activities. In conclusion, therefore, OSHA
projects that the final revisions to the asbestos construction standard will
be technologically feasible because all of the provisions, including the
lowered PEL, can be met using existing engineering controls, respiratory
protection and work practices.

"Shipyards." Historically, exposure to asbestos in shipyards took place
during shipbuilding and ship repair. At present, the majority of asbestos
activity aboard maritime vessels involves repair and maintenance of machinery
and plumbing with asbestos insulation. In this final rulemaking, the revised
asbestos standard for shipyards, Sec. 1915.1001, applies most of the
requirements given in the revised asbestos construction standard.

For the two main shipyard activities affected by the revised asbestos
standard -- wet removal/repair and dry removal/repair -- comment in the
record [Ex. 7-77, Ex. 7-85] suggests that employers are able to achieve the
revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc through the use of engineering controls and, where
necessary, respiratory protection. The OSHA Shipyard Employment Standards
Advisory Committee [Ex. 7-77] commented that on many shipyard projects,
exposure levels have been reduced to levels considerably below the revised
PEL. Moreover, to a large extent employers appear to be currently applying
the ancillary controls and work practices required in the revised
construction standard (and applied to the revised shipyard standard) [Ex.
9-23]. Therefore, on the basis of evidence in the record, OSHA believes the
revised shipyard standard is technologically feasible.

Compliance Costs

OSHA estimated the costs of complying with the final revisions to the
asbestos standard for general industry, construction and shipyards. OSHA's
cost assumptions and methodologies are based upon an OSHA/CONSAD technical
analysis of the final rule [OSHA, 1994]; OSHA's PRIA [OSHA, 1990]; CONSAD's
final report supporting the PRIA [1990]; the rulemaking record; and previous
regulatory analyses performed by OSHA [OSHA, 1986], CONSAD [CONSAD, 1985] and
Research Triangle Institute [RTI, 1985].

Cost data for control mechanisms were obtained from published price lists of
equipment suppliers and from other information collected by OSHA and CONSAD.
Wage data were taken from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor
Statistics' Employment and Earnings (BLS, 1993a) and Employment Cost Indexes
and Levels (BLS, 1993b). Unit costs are expressed, as appropriate, on a
per-establishment, -crew, -project, -worker, project-day, and worker-day
basis, using industry profile data presented in the OSHA/CONSAD technical
analysis [OSHA, 1994] and in CONSAD's prior analyses [CONSAD, 1990, 1985].

To derive estimates of the annual incremental compliance costs for the
revised asbestos standard, the estimated unit cost factors for the controls
were multiplied by the estimated number of required control resources. In
order to develop net annual compliance cost estimates, these gross annual
cost estimates were then adjusted using estimates of current application of
controls. Costs were estimated on an annual basis, with total annual costs
calculated as the sum of annualized initial costs and annual recurring costs.
Initial costs were annualized over the service life of the equipment or
administrative activity, at a discount rate of 10 percent.

The section below presents the estimated costs to general industry, followed
by the costs to construction and to shipyards.

"General industry." In developing the annual compliance cost estimates for
general industry, unit cost estimates were first developed for each of the
control practices and ancillary measures required by the revised standard for
each of the industry/process groups affected by the proposed standard. The
annual compliance costs for each affected industry/process group were then
computed by combining the unit cost data with the number of units of each
type of control practice needed per year to achieve compliance with OSHA's
proposed standard. Compliance costs were also adjusted to reflect current
compliance with the required control practices.

"Manufacturing." The industry/process groups in manufacturing with exposures
above the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc will require the implementation of a set of
uniform control practices, including written compliance programs, regulated
areas, respirators (including the respirator unit, accessories, fit testing
and cleaning), disposable protective clothing and gloves, change rooms and
lockers, shower rooms, and lunch rooms. Other controls, while necessary for
compliance with the revised standard, are also required by the current
asbestos standard and, thus, will not create an incremental burden. Controls
assumed by OSHA to be currently in place include periodic monitoring;
prescribed methods of compliance; employee information and training; medical
surveillance; and recordkeeping.

The revised asbestos standard for general industry imposes new communication
requirements for building and facility owners. In particular, under Paragraph
(j)(2)(ii), owners are required to maintain records of information concerning
the presence, location and quantity of asbestos-containing material (ACM) and
presumed asbestos-containing material (PACM). Under Paragraph (j)(2)(iii),
owners of buildings and facilities are required to inform employers of
employees who perform housekeeping activities in the presence of ACM or PACM
of the presence and location of the ACM or PACM in the area. In this
regulatory analysis OSHA treats housekeeping and custodial activities in
general industry as construction activities. OSHA's estimated compliance
costs for information requirements pertaining to housekeeping/custodial
activities are discussed below in the section on compliance costs for the
revised construction standard.

Brake and clutch repair. As in the existing OSHA asbestos standard for
general industry, automotive repair work is regulated in revised Sec.
1910.1001. In Paragraph (f)(3) employers performing six or more brake or
clutch jobs per week are required to use a negative pressure enclosure/HEPA
vacuum method, a low pressure/wet cleaning method, or an alternate method
proven to achieve results equivalent to those for the enclosure/HEPA vacuum
method. OSHA assessed the extent to which control practices are being applied
during brake and clutch repair in the automotive services industry and
identified the additional resources needed to reach full compliance with the
revised standard.

Based on OSHA's and CONSAD's assessment of current industry practice, OSHA
believes that only a small fraction of auto repair shops perform fewer than
six brake or clutch inspections per week [OSHA, 1994]. Thus, OSHA anticipates
that few shops will qualify for the exemption from engineering controls
mandated in revised Appendix F. OSHA and CONSAD [OSHA, 1994] estimate that 65
percent of brake shops currently use wet methods and solvent spray systems
during brake and clutch work. Under the revised standard, these shops would
have to switch to one of the fiber control methods permitted in Appendix F.

For this cost analysis, OSHA assumed most of the shops currently not in
compliance with the revised rule, will adopt the low pressure/ wet cleaning
method as the least expensive option permitted in the revised standard. OSHA
estimates that incremental expenditures for equipment, supplies and labor
time will total $11.2 million per year.

Comment in the record [Ex. L162-61] points to the potential for substantial
cost offsets from use of the low pressure/wet cleaning method. These cost
offsets include the reduced need for solvent; reductions in costs associated
with housekeeping and with laundering and disposal of contaminated rags and
other articles; and improved operating efficiencies. Because of potential
cost savings, use of the low pressure/wet cleaning method has grown in recent
years. Moreover, concern over the effect of 1-1-1 trichloroethane on the
ozone layer has led to a phase-out of the solvent, forcing brake shops to
discontinue use of the solvent spray method. Of concern to occupational
health specialists is the regular use of solvents among a workforce with
minimal protection from exposures. In sum, OSHA believes that cost offsets
and environmental and health concerns combine to mitigate the direct costs
facing brake shops who must switch to alternative asbestos control systems.

"Current work practices." In addition to work practices in automotive
services that meet the revised standard, certain work practices that were
required by OSHA's previous standard with a PEL of 2.0 f/cc, and are required
by the current standard, as well as by the proposed revisions to the current
standard (e.g. wet handling and the collection, disposal, and labeling of
wastes in sealed, impermeable bags), are also not identified as additional
costs. OSHA believes that wet methods (to the extent that they are feasible),
and the use of HEPA vacuums for housekeeping in primary and secondary
manufacturing, are already widely in use.

"Total costs for general industry." To derive estimates of the annual
incremental compliance costs for the industry/process groups affected by the
revised general industry standard, the estimated unit cost factors were first
multiplied by estimates of the resources necessary to achieve compliance for
that industry/process group. These gross annual cost estimates were then
adjusted to account for current compliance rates which were first projected
in the 1986 RIA [OSHA, 1986] and were modified as a result of compliance with
the excursion limit rule in 1988 [OSHA, 1988] and evidence from the
rulemaking record.

For each of the manufacturing processes in the affected industries, CONSAD
estimated the number of plants with exposures above the revised PEL of 0.1
f/cc (the number of plants needing controls), the number of processes to be
controlled, the number of work stations to be controlled, the number of
workers directly exposed, worker-days of exposure per year, and the direct
worker-hours of exposure per year. These estimates are based on: the number
of establishments in each industry sector, determined by CONSAD from
information presented in EPA's ban and phase-out rule [ICF, 1988], and from
contacts with industry experts; the percentage of processes within plants
with exposures above the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc and requiring controls; and
finally, characteristics concerning the number of processes per plant, work
stations per process, workers per work station, and the frequency and
duration of each process in these affected industries. The resource estimates
used to develop annual compliance costs are developed in detail in [CONSAD,
1990, Table 3.11].

Based on OSHA and CONSAD's analysis [OSHA, 1994; CONSAD, 1990], OSHA
estimates that annual costs of compliance in general industry will total
$14.8 million. Table 7 presents compliance costs by control practice, for
each industry process, for the industry sector as a whole, and for all of
general industry. Examining compliance costs by sector, it can be seen that
the largest compliance expenditures will be in auto repair ($11.2 million),
followed by friction materials ($2.2 million) and coatings and sealants ($1.2
million).

For secondary manufacture of gaskets and packings and secondary auto
remanufacturing, where exposures currently are below the revised PEL, OSHA
anticipates little or no incremental costs. Therefore, impacts on
establishments in these industry groups will be insignificant.

"Construction." Within the construction industry, 24 unique activities will
come under the scope of the proposed revision. These construction activities
are found in new construction, asbestos abatement and building demolition,
general building renovation and remodeling, and routine facility maintenance
and custodial work in public, commercial, and residential buildings and in
general industry. Although the construction activities under consideration in
this study will require the implementation of different control practices
and/or combinations of these practices, the basic characteristics of
available control practices are relatively uniform, and the options for
combining control practices in the construction industry and during routine
maintenance and repair activities in general industry are limited in number.

Certain work practices that have been required since OSHA's earlier asbestos
standards (e.g., wet handling and the collection and disposal of waste in
sealed, impermeable bags) are not included as cost elements.

For each major provision of the revised construction standard, below, OSHA
presents cost estimates by type of engineering or administrative control,
work practice or personal protective equipment, where appropriate.

(c) "Permissible exposure limits." The revised asbestos construction
standard lowers the permissible exposure limit from 0.2 fiber per cubic
centimeter to 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as an eight-hour
time-weighted average. The revised standard retains the current excursion
limit of 1.0 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as averaged over a sampling
period of thirty minutes.

After reviewing both (1) the literature on risk to asbestos in the
construction industry and (2) the earlier OSHA rulemaking record (Docket
H-033c), CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990, Table 2.8] reported representative exposure
levels by construction activity that formed the basis of OSHA's risk
estimates in the PRIA. CONSAD presented the range of exposure levels in the
absence of respiratory protection for each construction activity. From the
raw exposure data, OSHA [1986, 1990] developed arithmetic mean estimates,
against which the proposed PELs were compared. OSHA then assigned engineering
and respiratory controls as required and implied by the earlier rules.

OSHA's revised PEL is expected to lead to wider use of respirators in
construction. In particular, OSHA anticipates increased usage of half-mask
and full-face cartridge respirators as a result of the revised PEL. For some
activities where average exposures are projected to be below the PEL due to
the use of engineering controls and work practices, respirators may be
necessary where peak exposures occur. OSHA conservatively applied half-mask
cartridge respirators, with a protection factor of 10, where peak exposures
can exceed ten times the revised PEL; OSHA applied full-facepiece cartridge
respirators for activities where peak exposures can exceed 50 times the
revised PEL. In all, annual respirator costs will total $24.9 million.
Included in this total cost are expenditures for the respirator unit,
accessories, filters, training (costs assigned under Paragraph (k)
Communication of hazards), cleaning and fit testing.

(d) "Multi-employer worksites." Revised Paragraph (d) expands upon the
current requirement that an employer performing asbestos work in a regulated
area inform other employers on the site of the nature of the employer's work
with asbestos and the existence of, and rules pertaining to, regulated areas.
In addition, Paragraph (d) requires * Abatement of asbestos hazards by the
contractor controlling the source of the contamination -- (d)(2) *
Protection of employees adjacent to asbestos worksite -- (d)(3) * Daily
assessment by adjacent employers of integrity of enclosures or effectiveness
of other control methods relied on by the primary asbestos contractor --
(d)(4) * Supervisory authority by general contractors over the work of the
asbestos contractor on the asbestos worksite -- (d)(5).

OSHA anticipates significant compliance costs for three of the four
additional requirements in the revised paragraph on multi-employer worksites.
For provisions (d)(2) and (d)(3), OSHA believes that compliance with the
requirements for PELs [Paragraph (c)] and initial exposure assessment
[Paragraph (j)] will ensure compliance with these areas. Regarding daily
assessment of work areas, required by (d)(4), OSHA considers these duties to
fall under the supervision of competent persons. Compliance costs for
competent persons are discussed below under Paragraph (o).

For Paragraph (d)(5), OSHA assumes that after promulgation of the revised
standard, asbestos contractors will achieve full compliance and, therefore,
that general contractors will rarely need to exercise authority over employee
protection.

(e) "Regulated areas." Paragraph (e) specifies the controls required for
construction activities designated as regulated areas. OSHA anticipates
incremental costs for all construction work defined in the revised standard
as Class I, II or III. Incremental costs for regulated areas will stem from
the need for caution and warning signs and caution tape at the perimeter of
work areas, as required by (e)(2) Demarcation and (k)(6) Signs. OSHA
anticipates total costs of $15.8 million for caution and warning signs.

(f) "Exposure assessments and monitoring." Revised Paragraph (f) alters
current requirements for initial exposure monitoring, periodic monitoring,
termination of monitoring, additional monitoring, employee notification of
sampling results, and observation of monitoring. OSHA anticipates that
following promulgation of this revised standard, many employers will
initially monitor higher-risk sites -- under conditions of full application
of controls -- in order to establish compliance with the revised PEL of 0.1
f/cc. Results from initial monitoring can be used as historical, objective
data for compliance purposes, consistent with revised (f)(1)(iii) Negative
initial exposure assessment.

To estimate monitoring costs in construction, OSHA assumed -- for activities
where objective data has not been established -- that employers conducting
Class I, II or III work, will purchase monitoring equipment, train a
supervisor to conduct monitoring, and have three representative exposure
samples analyzed by a laboratory. OSHA assumed that employers conducting
Class IV activities will hire an outside industrial hygiene technician to
monitor workers and collect three exposure samples. Basing cost analysis on
these assumptions, OSHA projects total incremental compliance costs of $40.1
million for exposure monitoring.

(g) "Methods of Compliance." In revised Paragraph (g) Methods of compliance,
OSHA has significantly expanded the structure and content of the regulatory
text in the current standard. Revised Paragraph (g) prescribes specific
engineering controls and work practices for each of the four asbestos
construction classes defined in the standard. To satisfy the requirements for
ancillary controls, employers are expected to purchase or otherwise adopt the
following types of controls and practices: HEPA vacuum/ventilation systems;
HEPA vacuums; wet methods; airtight (negative-pressure) regulated areas; drop
cloths; mini enclosures; critical barriers; and glove bag systems (with HEPA
vacuums). Included in the cost of each control are expenditures for basic
equipment, accessories, construction supplies (for barriers and enclosures),
smoke testers (for negative-pressure enclosures), and incremental labor
resources needed to implement the control, to smoke test (where necessary)
and to disassemble the control.

Incremental compliance costs associated with engineering controls and work
practices are anticipated for all construction activities affected by the
revised standard. The combination of controls vary by activity, depending on
current exposure levels, the extent of current compliance assumed by OSHA,
and the construction class (as defined in the revised standard) for the work
activity. OSHA projects the following annual compliance costs for methods of
compliance:

* HEPA vacuum/ventilation systems -- $15.3 million

* HEPA vacuums -- $32.5 million

* Wet methods -- $55.2 million

* Airtight regulated areas -- $2.2 million

* Drop cloths -- $13.8 million

* Mini enclosures -- $41.6 million

* Critical barriers -- $22.2 million

* Glovebag systems -- $4.5 million.

(h) "Respiratory protection." Revised Paragraph (h) mandates the use of
respirators under particular circumstances during asbestos construction work.
As prescribed in the standard, respirators must be worn (1) during all Class
I work; (2) during all Class III work when TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM is
being disturbed; (3) during all Class II and III asbestos jobs where wet
methods are not used or where insufficient or inadequate data prevents
development of a negative exposure assessment; or (4) in emergencies. For
this final regulatory impact analysis, OSHA identified an additional need for
respirators in new construction, during removal and repair of flooring
products, during routine maintenance in general industry, and during
custodial work in industrial, commercial and residential buildings.
Respirators were assigned to construction activities where baseline exposure
ranges suggested workers would occasionally exceed the revised PEL.
Incremental compliance costs for respirators were presented above under (c)
Permissible exposure limits.

(i) "Protective clothing." Paragraph (i) in this final rulemaking has been
revised such that protective clothing will be required for all Class I
activities and in Class III activities where thermal system insulation or
surfacing ACM/PACM is being disturbed in which a negative exposure assessment
has not been produced, in addition to the requirement that clothing be worn
when the PEL or excursion limit (EL) is exceeded. OSHA anticipates an
additional need for protective clothing in the following construction
activities where workers may occasionally exceed the PEL:

* A/C pipe installation

* A/C sheet installation

* Remove flooring products

* Repair flooring

* Custodial work in industrial buildings

* Custodial work in public, commercial and residential buildings.

OSHA assumes that to provide protective clothing to employees as required by
the standard, employers will minimize costs by providing to each employee one
set of disposable clothing and gloves for each worker-day. For disposal,
clothing can be combined with other contaminated waste and sealed in
impermeable bags. Summing incremental costs for protective disposable
clothing, OSHA estimates total costs of $17.9 million associated with revised
Paragraph (i).

(j) "Hygiene facilities and practices for employees." Revised Paragraph (j)
provides for decontamination areas, equipment rooms, showers, change rooms,
and lunch areas for Class I activities. Class II and Class III activities may
conduct decontamination in adjacent areas on impermeable drop cloths, with
clothing and equipment cleaned with HEPA vacuums. Decontamination following
Class IV activities must be at least as stringent as required for the class
of activity within which the Class IV work is being performed.

OSHA anticipates that Class I hygiene requirements will apply for the first
time to boiler repair, pipe repair and miscellaneous maintenance in general
industry. Annual compliance costs will total $5.5 million for equipment and
labor involved with the hygiene facilities in Class I work.

Employers can decontaminate Class II and Class III work using drop cloths
and HEPA vacuums, controls required under (g) Methods of compliance. OSHA's
estimated costs for drop cloths and HEPA vacuums were presented above in the
discussion of revised Paragraph (g).

OSHA assumes that decontamination following Class IV work conducted in
regulated areas will be provided by the primary contractor at the job site.
Costs for decontamination of Class IV employees, then would be captured by
the total decontamination costs for the activity in the regulated area. In
addition, OSHA assumed that drop cloths and HEPA vacuums will be needed by
custodians following higher-risk activities outside regulated areas. Costs
for drop cloths and HEPA vacuums were presented under (g) Methods of
compliance, above.

(k) "Communication of hazards." Revised Paragraph (k) supplements the
existing hazard-communication requirements in the asbestos standard by
introducing provisions for notification of building and facility owners,
contractors, employees and building occupants of the presence, location and
quantity of asbestos-containing material (ACM) or presumed
asbestos-containing material (PACM). The final revisions to (k) also include
training requirements that mirror the training required under the EPA ASHARA
legislation, for employees working around ACM or PACM. Training required
under revised Paragraph (k) appears to strengthen the content of training
required under existing (k) by explicitly referencing the EPA Model
Accreditation Plan (MAP) and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) worker
protection training.(5)

__________

Footnote(5) Revised Paragraph (k) allows employers to substitute -- for
Class II activities working with generic building materials -- training
suitable to the removal or disturbance of that category of building material.

For this final regulatory impact analysis, OSHA identified incremental
compliance costs for employee training and notifications involving
building/facility owners, construction employers, construction employees, and
building occupants. For the purpose of cost estimation, OSHA categorized
employee training into three groups: (1) Classes I and II, (2) Class III, and
(3) Class IV.(6) For each of the three categories of training required by the
revised standard, OSHA estimated compliance costs as follows:

__________

Footnote(6) Class I training was assumed to require a total of 32 hours,
whereas Class II training was assumed to require a total of 24 hours. Total
costs for Class I and Class II training are combined in this discussion.

* Class I/II -- $51.8 million

* Class III -- $35.9 million

* Class IV -- $22.6 million.

In that OSHA's training requirements parallel the requirements mandated in
EPA's MAP regulation, OSHA attributes to the EPA regulation, training costs
in this final revision to the OSHA asbestos construction standard.

To estimate compliance costs of the new notification requirements in revised
Paragraph (k), OSHA identified seven unique types of notifications. OSHA
assumed that notification among affected parties could involve memos, phone
calls, notices or other lower-cost means of communication, ranging in labor
time from three to five minutes per project. The types of notifications are
given below, along with OSHA's estimated total annual compliance cost.

* Notification by building owner to building occupants
-- low-risk ACM -- $22.3 million

* Notification by building owner to all
contractors in building --

$6.1 million.

In addition to requirements for notification, Paragraph (k)(2)(iii) requires
owners to maintain records of all information indicating the presence,
location and quantity of ACM and PACM in the building. OSHA estimated
recordkeeping costs of $9.7 million to comply with revised (k).

(l) "Housekeeping." Paragraph (l) is expanded in this final revision to the
asbestos construction standard to include a section on care of
asbestos-containing flooring material. Included in the new section are a
prohibition on sanding of asbestos-containing material; work practices
specifying wet methods for floor stripping and adequate floor finish for
burnishing and dry buffing; and a requirement that dusting and dry sweeping
be performed with HEPA vacuums. OSHA anticipates incremental compliance costs
associated with using wet methods and HEPA vacuums during housekeeping
duties. Costs for the use of wet methods during custodial work is included in
the total costs for wet methods given under (g), above, and are expected to
be $55.2 million. Costs for the use of HEPA vacuums during custodial work is
included in the total costs for HEPA vacuums given under (g), above, and are
expected to be $32.5 million.

(m) "Medical surveillance." Revised Paragraph (m) provides that medical
exams be given for all employees whose exposures exceed the PEL or excursion
limit for 30 or more days per year, or who are required by the standard to
wear negative pressure respirators. For this final RIA, OSHA recognized the
extent to which medical exams are currently provided to employees. Therefore,
incremental costs were estimated only for employees in those construction
activities which previously did not qualify for medical exams but which now
appear to meet the qualifications. Activities qualifying for medical exams
under the revised standard include the following (along with estimated annual
compliance costs):

* A/C pipe installation -- $59 thousand

* A/C sheet installation -- $61 thousand

* Floor removal -- $828 thousand * Floor repair -- $6.5 million

* Large-scale gasket removal in general industry -- $702 thousand

* Pipe repair in general industry -- $1.9 million.

Estimated compliance costs for Paragraph (m) include costs for medical exams
and for recordkeeping. In all, $10.1 million in annual costs for medical
surveillance are expected for affected construction activities.

(o) "Competent person." Paragraph (o) is a new section of the construction
standard and provides for competent person training and supervision for Class
I, II, and III activities. Consistent with the distinctions among activity
classes in (o), OSHA identified two levels of competent person training:
Class I/II and Class III. OSHA estimates that costs for annual Class I/II
competent person supervision will be $13.5 million; OSHA estimates annual
costs of $6.0 million for Class III competent person supervision. OSHA's
estimates of competent person training costs are based on an analysis by
EPA's contractor Abt Associates [Abt, 1993], of the costs and benefits of the
EPA Model Accreditation Plan regulation.

In addition to competent person supervision, the revised standard requires
that the person evaluating compliance methods that are alternatives to those
in (g) Methods of compliance, be qualified as a project designer
[(g)(6)(ii)]. OSHA estimated the costs for training project designers for
Class I activities. At an annual cost of $171 thousand, the training burden
implied by this requirement is attributed to the EPA MAP regulation, which
provides for training of project designers and other competent persons.

"Total construction costs." Based on OSHA's preliminary regulatory impact
analysis [OSHA, 1990], preliminary analysis by CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990], and
cost analysis of the revised standard by OSHA and CONSAD [OSHA, 1994], OSHA
estimated total costs of compliance with the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc and the
ancillary requirements pertaining to regulated areas, methods of compliance,
respiratory protection, hygiene facilities, communication of hazards and
competent person training. The estimated compliance costs, by control
requirement, are shown in Table 8 for each major construction sector. OSHA's
estimate of total cost, $476.4 million, is the average cost for a range of
construction workers potentially at risk in each of the activities affected
by the standard (see [CONSAD, 1990, Appendix A] and [OSHA, 1994]). This
estimate of incremental costs, however, includes the training costs -- for
workers, supervisors, project designers and competent persons -- that would
otherwise be incurred through compliance with the EPA Model Accreditation
Plan regulation. Excluding EPA-related training costs, OSHA estimates that
$346.5 million in incremental costs are attributed to the OSHA construction
standard. Table 9 presents total annual compliance costs by construction
activity, for requirements unique to the revised OSHA construction standard.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on OSHA, 1994; CONSAD, 1990; and the rulemaking record

"Shipyards." The revised standard for shipyards largely resembles the
revised construction standard. OSHA and CONSAD [OSHA, 1994] identified two
shipyard activities -- wet removal/repair/installation and dry
removal/repair/installation aboard vessels -- where significant contact with
asbestos can take place. CONSAD's cost analysis assumes asbestos removal will
be performed by abatement specialists currently complying with requirements
in the existing asbestos general industry standard (under which asbestos
contact during shipbuilding and repairing is presently regulated).
Specifically, abatement specialists in shipyards are believed to be currently
using the following controls at near-100 percent level:

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office or Regulatory Analysis, based on OSHA, 1994; OSHA, 1986; and RTI, 1985

Aggregate incremental compliance costs. As described above, OSHA estimated
compliance costs associated with the revised asbestos standard for General
Industry, Construction and Shipyards. Total annual costs for each of the
three main parts of the asbestos standard are as follows (excluding
EPA-related training costs):

Summing compliance costs across affected sectors, OSHA estimates that annual
incremental compliance costs of $361.4 million will result following
promulgation of the rule.

The next section applies these estimates of incremental compliance costs for
an analysis of the economic impacts of the revised asbestos standard.

F. Economic Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Introduction

OSHA examined the impacts of compliance costs on payroll, sales and profits
for firms in general industry, shipyards and construction affected by the
revision to the asbestos standard. OSHA's economic impact analysis is
presented below.

Data Sources and Methodology

OSHA used a variety of financial indicators and sources of statistical data
to assess the impacts on the affected industries. Payroll data for primary
manufacturing industries and real estate industries were taken from County
Business Patterns, 1990 [Dept. of Commerce, 1993]. Payroll data for
construction industries were taken from the 1987 Census of Construction,
[Dept. of Commerce, 1990b]. Data on sales were obtained from Dun and
Bradstreet's Marketing Information computer database [Dun and Bradstreet,
1992a] for the following industry groups:

Selected real estate industries. Data on net value of construction
work (a statistic approximating the sales volume of construction firms) for
the construction sector were taken from the "1987 Census of Construction"
[Dept. of Commerce, 1990b]. OSHA derived pre-tax profit rates using Dun and
Bradstreet post-tax return-on-sales data from Dun's Insight computer database
[Dun and Bradstreet, 1992b] and the 1987 tax code. Pre-tax profits were
calculated using a formula that contains the marginal corporate tax rates for
1993.

Impacts in General Industry and Shipyards

"Primary manufacturing." OSHA has determined that the following four
industries in primary manufacturing would be affected by the revision to the
asbestos standard: SIC 3292, Friction Materials; SIC 3053, Gaskets and
Packings; SIC 2952, Coatings and Sealants; and SIC 3089, Plastics. OSHA has
concluded that there will be no incremental costs for the secondary
manufacturing industries identified in the preliminary regulatory impact
analysis because these manufacturers are believed to have already achieved
exposure reductions that bring them into compliance with OSHA's new PEL of
0.1 f/cc.

OSHA compared the incremental compliance costs anticipated for the four
affected primary manufacturing industries with three financial indicators:
(1) Annual payroll per firm, (2) dollar value of sales per firm and (3)
pre-tax profits per firm. The comparison with annual payroll conveys the
magnitude of compliance costs relative to labor costs. The comparison with
sales provides a measure of the extent to which prices would rise to maintain
profit levels if a firm is able to pass 100 percent of incremental costs
forward to buyers. If firms, for competitive reasons, are unable to pass
costs forward and must instead absorb the full impact internally, pre-tax
profits would be expected to fall. The comparison with pre-tax profits thus
illustrates the maximum financial impact if the firm absorbs 100 percent of
the incremental compliance costs.

Table 11 presents the estimated impact of compliance costs in relation to
annual payroll, sales, and pre-tax profits per plant in primary
manufacturing. Compliance costs as a percentage of sales are modest,
averaging 0.6 percent for affected establishments in primary manufacturing
(Column 7). However, as shown in Column 8 in the table, profit impacts are
relatively high for two sectors: friction materials (26.2 percent) and
gaskets and packings (7.3 percent). For reasons given below, OSHA believes
that profit impacts will be minimized by the ability of firms to pass forward
costs to consumers. The small increases in product prices (less than 2
percent) necessary to cover the increased costs of production would be
unlikely to affect the demand for these products.

Table 11. -- Estimated Economic Impacts in General Industry As
A Result Of The Revision To The General Industry
Asbestos Standard

(For Table 11, see printed copy)

As evidenced by the disappearance of domestic production of various
asbestos-based product lines (e.g., A/C pipe and A/C sheet) over the last
several years and the dramatic reduction in the production of other products
(e.g., asbestos-containing plastics), many former producers and consumers of
asbestos are increasingly substituting other materials for asbestos. The
market forces behind increased substitution appear to be related to legal
issues, such as liability, and regulatory concerns, such as the attempted
Environmental Protection Agency asbestos ban, rather than strictly the effect
of product substitution. Even when asbestos-based products are much cheaper
than non-asbestos-based products, demand and supply are shifting away from
asbestos-based products.

Primary manufacturers appear to have the latitude to raise prices on their
products in the short run, but may substitute away from asbestos entirely in
the long run. In the friction materials industry, substitute products can be
difficult to develop, suggesting a limited cross-elasticity of demand that
permits costs to be fairly easily passed along to consumers. For other
industries, since the substitution of inputs generally occurs at the site of
formerly asbestos-based production, any incremental economic impacts from
this rule should be minimal.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA also examined the
impacts on small establishments in primary manufacturing to determine if they
would be adversely affected by the final standard. Using data for firms with
19 or fewer employees, OSHA compared compliance costs with annual payroll,
sales, and pre-tax profits for affected industries identified as containing
small establishments. The affected industries include small firms producing
asbestos gaskets and packings in SIC 3053, Gaskets, Packing, and Sealing
Devices and producing asbestos coatings and sealants in SIC 2952, Asphalt
Felts and Coatings. OSHA has determined that there are currently no small
producers of asbestos friction materials and asbestos plastics.

Small-firm impacts for primary manufacturing are shown in Table 11. Under a
full cost-pass-through scenario, OSHA projects that compliance costs would be
1.1 percent of sales for gaskets and packings and that compliance costs would
be 0.6 percent of sales for coatings and sealants. Costs as a percentage of
pre-tax profits, shown in the last column of Table 11, are significantly
higher, suggesting that severe profit reductions could be felt by any small
firms unable to pass forward incremental compliance costs. However, as
discussed above, OSHA believes these firms will be able to pass along most of
the costs of compliance by raising prices and will therefore suffer minimal
economic impact.

"Automotive repair." Economic impacts in establishments performing
automotive brake and clutch repair, presented in Table 12, are expected to be
minor as a result of compliance with the revised standard for general
industry. As a percentage of sales, compliance costs average 0.01 percent for
industry overall and for affected small establishments. As for the worst-case
financial impact, compliance costs as a percentage of profits would average
0.21 percent for all of industry and would average 0.26 percent for small
establishments. On the basis of these impact estimates, OSHA has therefore
concluded that overall impacts in automotive repair will be modest and that
there will be no significant differential effect on small businesses as a
result of the final standard.

Footnote(a) Impacts presented as 0.00% are projected to be below 0.01%

"Ship repair." The impacts of the revision to the asbestos standard on
establishments involved in ship repair are expected to be minimal. Table 13
shows that average price impacts would be 0.07 percent for all establishments
and would be 0.1 percent for small establishments if firms were able to
charge increased operating costs to their customers, i.e., ship owners. At
the opposite extreme in terms of potential financial impact, compliance costs
as a percentage of profits would average 0.8 percent for firms of all sizes
in ship repair and would average 1.2 percent for small firms in ship repair.
Thus, OSHA has concluded that there will be no significant differential
effect on small businesses involved in ship repair as a result of the final
standard.

Table 13. -- Economic Impacts On Establishments PerformingShip repair As A Result Of The Revision ToThe Asbestos Standard

SIC industry

Compli- ance cost per firm

Sales per firm

Pre-tax profit

Pre-tax profit rate (per- cent)

Compliance costs as a percent of sales

Compliance costs as a percent of profits

Average Impacts on All Establishments:

Ship Repair:

3731

Shipbuilding and Repair

$12,728

$19,439,148

$1,570,840

8.1

0.07

0.81

Impacts on Small Establishments:

Ship Repair:

3731

Shipbuilding and Repair

12,728

12,751,431

1.030,419

8.1

0.10

1.24

Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis; Dun and Bradstreet 1992a, 1992b; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993

Impacts Associated With the Revised Construction Standard

"Impacts in the Construction Industry." OSHA estimated economic impacts in
construction using three economic impact measures, calculated for each
affected industry group. The first measure is the ratio of the average annual
compliance cost per affected establishment (or per exposed construction
worker) to an estimate of the average payroll per establishment (or per
construction worker). As explained above, this measure compares the projected
compliance costs to labor costs normally incurred by the establishment.

The second impact measure is the ratio of the average annual compliance cost
per affected establishment (or per exposed construction worker) to an
estimate of the net dollar value of construction work or sales for an average
establishment (or per construction worker). This ratio indicates the
relationship of the compliance costs to an establishment or worker's output
and indicates the maximum impact on prices assuming 100 percent pass-through
of the compliance costs to the consumer.

The third economic impact statistic calculated by OSHA for construction
measures the effect of compliance costs on profits. Profit impacts were
calculated at the industry level by dividing into compliance costs per
establishment, the estimated pre-tax profit per establishment. This index
reveals the maximum potential impact on profits under the assumption that
compliance costs are fully absorbed by the affected firm. Profit impacts are
particularly meaningful when establishments face highly-competitive
conditions which prevent the pass-through of compliance costs to customers.

Annual incremental compliance costs per construction firm were estimated
using the costs presented above for new construction; asbestos abatement and
demolition; general building renovation; routine maintenance in public,
commercial, and residential buildings; and custodial work in public,
commercial, residential, and industrial buildings (routine maintenance in
industrial facilities is analyzed separately below). Table 14 presents
average per-worker and per-firm costs and impacts for all affected
construction sectors. Table 15 shows estimated costs and impacts for small
establishments in affected construction sectors.

Table 14. -- Average Economic Impacts Of The Asbestos
Standard For Construction

[All Establishments, by Industry]

(For Table 14, see printed copy)

Table 15. -- Economic Impacts Of The Revision To The Asbestos
Standard For Construction

[Small Establishments, by Industry]

(For Table 15, see printed copy)

Based on OSHA and CONSAD's estimates of the number of affected firms, crews,
and workers performing each construction activity and the number of projects
conducted by each firm in a year [OSHA, 1994], annual costs for
establishments of average size are expected to range from $190 per building
for SIC 6512, Operators of Nonresidential Buildings to $2,283 per firm in SIC
1752, Floor Laying and Other Floor Work, Not Elsewhere Classified.(7) As
shown in Table 14, costs as a percentage of payroll, sales, and profits are
generally low on both a per-worker and per-establishment basis when averaged
across a range of firms in affected industries. Costs as a percentage of
sales per establishment average 0.13 percent and do not exceed 0.6 percent in
any industry. For the impact scenario where cost pass-through is not
possible, OSHA projects that profit reductions would average 2.4 percent and
would be below 5 percent for all but one industry, floor laying and floor
work. For flooring contractors in SIC 1752, profit impacts could exceed 9
percent if employers were forced to fully absorb compliance costs out of
retained revenues and were not able to pass costs forward. OSHA believes,
however, that profit impacts will not be as severe as depicted in this
worst-case scenario, for two reasons.

__________

Footnote(7) Compliance costs for firms in SICs 6512 and 6513 were estimated
on a per-building basis, rather than a per-firm basis, due to insufficient
data on numbers of buildings owned per firm in these industry groups.

First, it appears that there are few services that compete with floor
maintenance directly, and therefore demand for services provided by the
industry is relatively inelastic. Secondly, all floor-laying establishments
are treated uniformly by the revised standard. Because no individual firm
faces unfair regulatory treatment by the revised standard, cost impacts are
expected across the majority of industry. Consequently, most affected firms
should be able to pass forward costs to customers without significant
redistribution of market share. As indicated in Table 14, cost impacts on
prices (sales) would be minimal under a full cost-pass-through scenario.

Annual costs for small establishments are expected to range from $128 per
building for SIC 6512, Operators of Nonresidential Buildings to $723 per firm
in SIC 1711, Plumbing, Heating and Air-Conditioning, as shown in Table 15,
Column 4. Small-firm compliance costs as a percentage of payroll, sales, and
profits are fairly modest on both a per-worker and per-establishment basis.
Costs as a percentage of sales per establishment average 0.13 percent and do
not exceed 0.3 percent in any industry, whereas, for the case of zero cost
pass-through, costs as a percentage of profits average 2.4 percent. OSHA has
concluded that no differential adverse impact will be experienced by small
firms in any construction sector when compared to larger firms because the
costs of compliance are expected to be roughly equivalent on a per-worker
basis.

"Routine maintenance in industrial facilities." In profiling asbestos
maintenance activities within general industry, OSHA and CONSAD have assumed
that the majority of the work would be performed by plant and maintenance
personnel within the establishment. Under this assumption, incremental costs
attributed to requirements in the revised construction standard that pertain
to these maintenance tasks would financially impact general industry.
Therefore, economic impacts associated with routine maintenance in general
industry are included in this section on impacts under the construction
standard. Impacts in affected general industry sectors are shown in Tables 16
and 17.

Table 16. -- Average Economic Impacts on the Revision to theAsbestos Standard for Construction on Establishmentsin General Industry Where Routine AsbestosMaintenance is Performed

Footnote(a) Impacts presented as 0.00% are projected to be below 0.01%

Economic impacts from costs of compliance in industrial facilities were
computed in terms of price impacts and profit impacts. As shown in Table 16,
average economic impacts across all affected establishments are expected to
be minimal. Price impacts -- costs as a percentage of sales -- would average
0.01 percent if firms were able to pass forward all compliance costs to
consumers. If full cost pass-through is not achievable and affected firms
must finance compliance expenditures from retained earnings, OSHA anticipates
that profit impacts would be no greater than 0.21 percent.

Table 17 presents economic impacts on small firms in general industry where
routine asbestos maintenance takes place. The results suggest that no serious
economic consequences are expected from compliance with the revision to the
final rule. Impacts on sales average 0.01 percent, whereas impacts on profits
average 0.21 percent and are no higher than 0.7 percent for any industry
group. Therefore, OSHA concludes that there will be no significant
differential effect on small businesses in general industry performing
routine maintenance involving contact with asbestos-containing materials.

Conclusion

In this section OSHA presented economic impact projections for affected
industry groups in general industry, shipyards and construction. Economic
impact measures calculated by OSHA expressed percentage effects of compliance
costs on payroll, sales, and profits. On the basis of OSHA's analysis of the
economic effects of the revised asbestos standard, OSHA has determined that
impacts will be modest for most affected industry groups. Therefore, OSHA
judges the revised asbestos standard to be economically feasible.

Commission on Merchant Marine and Defense. [Merchant Marine Commission,
1987]. First Report of the Commission on Merchant Marine and
Defense, Appendices. Washington, D.C., September 30, 1987.

CONSAD and General Research Corp. [CONSAD and GRC, 1982]. Employer
Compensation and Control Systems, Final Report, 1982. Prepared for
the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Pittsburgh: Consad Research Corporation; and McLean, Virginia: General
Research Corporation, 1982. CONSAD Research Corporation. [CONSAD, 1990].
Economic Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the OSHA Asbestos Standards
for Construction and General Industry. Final Report. Contract Number
J-9-F-8-0033, Task Order 4, Option Year 1. July 27, 1990. Docket H-033e, Ex.
8.

1971. U.S. Bureau of Mines. [Bureau of Mines, 1993] "Asbestos in 1992."
Mineral Industry Surveys. Branch of Industrial Minerals and Branch of Data
Collection and Coordination, Department of the Interior. Washington D.C.
April 1993.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce. [Chamber of Commerce, 1987]. 1987 Analysis of
Workers' Compensation Laws. Washington, D.C., 1987. U.S. Department of
Commerce. [Dept. of Commerce, 1993]. County Business Patterns, 1990. Bureau
of the Census. 1993.

U.S. Department of Commerce. International Trade Administration. 1993 U.S.
Industrial Outlook. 34th Annual Edition. U.S. Department of Commerce. [Dept.
of Commerce, 1990a] Bureau of the Census. Industry Series MC87-I-37-C. Census
of Manufactures: Shipbuilding and Repairing (Industry 3731). Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1990.

U.S. Department of Commerce. [Dept. of Commerce, 1990b]. 1987 Census of
Construction Industries. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.,
March 1990.

U.S. Department of Labor. [BLS, 1991]. Occupational Mobility. Bureau of
Labor Statistics. January 1991. U.S. Department of Labor. [OSHA, 1994].
OSHA/CONSAD Technical Analysis of Final Revisions to the OSHA Standard
Covering Occupational Exposure to Asbestos. Prepared by U.S. Department of
Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis and CONSAD Research Corporation
under Contract Number J-9-F-1-0011, Option Year 2, Task Order 1. March 1994.

5 CFR 1320 sets forth procedures for agencies to follow in obtaining OMB
clearance for information collection requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The final Asbestos standard requires
the employer to allow OSHA access to records and under certain circumstances,
requires employers to submit notifications to the Agency. OMB has reviewed
and approved the collection of information requirements for occupational
exposure to Asbestos for Construction (29 CFR 1926.1101) and Shipyards (29
CFR 1915.1001) under OMB clearance numbers 1218-0134 and 1218-0195
respectively. The OMB clearances expire in July 1997. There were no new
information collection requirements for General industry 29 CFR 1910.1001,
currently approved under 1218-0133. The Asbestos General industry clearance
expires in March 1996.

VI. Authority and Signature

This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear, Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

(a) Asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite dust. Section
1910.1001 shall apply to the exposure of every employee to asbestos,
tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite dust in every employment and place
of employment covered by Sec. 1910.16, in lieu of any different standard on
exposure to asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite dust which
would otherwise be applicable by virtue of any of those sections.

* * * * *

2. The authority citation of subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1910 continues to read
as follows:

All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, except those substances which have exposure limits listed in
Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The latter were issued under
section 6(a) [29 U.S.C. 655(a)].

3. Section 1910.1001 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (p) (all
the text preceding the appendices) to read as follows:

1910.1001 Asbestos.

(a) Scope and application. (1) This section applies to all occupational
exposures to asbestos in all industries covered by the Occupational Safety
and Health Act, except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) and (3) of this
section.

(2) This section does not apply to construction work as defined in 29 CFR
1910.12(b). (Exposure to asbestos in construction work is covered by 29 CFR
1926.58.) (3) This section does not apply to ship repairing, shipbuilding and
shipbreaking employments and related employments as defined in 29 CFR 1915.4.
(Exposure to asbestos in these employments is covered by 29 CFR 1915.191).

(b) Definitions. "Asbestos" includes chrysotile, amosite,
crocidolite, tremolite asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, actinolite asbestos,
and any of these minerals that have been chemically treated and/or
altered.

"Assistant Secretary" means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, or designee.

"Authorized person" means any person authorized by the employer and required
by work duties to be present in regulated areas.

"Building/facility owner" is the legal entity, including a lessee, which
exercises control over management and record keeping functions relating to a
building and/or facility in which activities covered by this standard take
place.

"Director" means the Director of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or designee.

"Employee exposure" means that exposure to airborne asbestos that would
occur if the employee were not using respiratory protective equipment.

"Fiber" means a particulate form of asbestos 5 micrometers or longer,with a
length-to-diameter ratio of at least 3 to 1.

"Industrial hygienist" means a professional qualified by education,
training, and experience to anticipate, recognize, evaluate and develop
controls for occupational health hazards.

"PACM" means thermal system insulation, sprayed on or troweled on surfacing
material and debris in work areas where such material is present.

"Regulated area" means an area established by the employer to demarcate
areas where airborne concentrations of asbestos exceed, or there is a
reasonable possibility they may exceed, the permissible exposure limits.

(c) Permissible exposure limit (PELS) -- (1) Time-weighted average limit
(TWA). The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborne
concentration of asbestos excess of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as
an eight (8)-hour time-weighted average (TWA) as determined by the method
prescribed in Appendix A of this section, or by an equivalent method.

(2) Excursion limit. The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposed
to an airborne concentration of asbestos in excess of 1.0 fiber per cubic
centimeter of air (1 f/cc) as averaged over a sampling period of thirty (30)
minutes.

(d) Exposure monitoring. -- (1) General. (i) Determinations of employee
exposure shall be made from breathing zone air samples that are
representative of the 8-hour TWA and 30-minute short-term exposures of each
employee.

(ii) Representative 8-hour TWA employee exposures shall be determined on the
basis of one or more samples representing full-shift exposures for each shift
for each employee in each job classification in each work area.
Representative 30-minute short-term employee exposures shall be determined on
the basis of one or more samples representing 30 minute exposures associated
with operations that are most likely to produce exposures above the excursion
limit for each shift for each job classification in each work area.

(2) Initial monitoring. (i) Each employer who has a workplace or work
operation covered by this standard, except as provided for in paragraphs
(d)(2)(ii) and (d)(2)(iii) of this section, shall perform initial monitoring
of employees who are, or may reasonably be expected to be exposed to airborne
concentrations at or above the TWA permissible exposure limit and/or
excursion limit.

(ii) Where the employer has monitored after March 31, 1992, for the TWA
permissible exposure limit and/or the excursion limit, and the monitoring
satisfies all other requirements of this section, the employer may rely on
such earlier monitoring results to satisfy the requirements of paragraph
(d)(2)(i) of this section.

(iii) Where the employer has relied upon objective data that demonstrate
that asbestos is not capable of being released in airborne concentrations at
or above the TWA permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit under the
expected conditions of processing, use, or handling, then no initial
monitoring is required.

(3) Monitoring frequency (periodic monitoring) and patterns. After the
initial determinations required by paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section,
samples shall be of such frequency and pattern as to represent with
reasonable accuracy the levels of exposure of the employees. In no case shall
sampling be at intervals greater than six months for employees whose
exposures may reasonably be foreseen to exceed the TWA permissible exposure
limit and/or excursion limit.

(4) Changes in monitoring frequency. If either the initial or the periodic
monitoring required by paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section
statistically indicates that employee exposures are below the TWA permissible
exposure limit and/or excursion limit, the employer may discontinue the
monitoring for those employees whose exposures are represented by such
monitoring.

(5) Additional monitoring. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs
(d)(2)(ii) and (d)(4) of this section, the employer shall institute the
exposure monitoring required under paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(3) of this
section whenever there has been a change in the production, process, control
equipment, personnel or work practices that may result in new or additional
exposures above the TWA permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit or
when the employer has any reason to suspect that a change may result in new
or additional exposures above the action level and/or excursion limit.

(6) Method of monitoring. (i) All samples taken to satisfy the monitoring
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section shall be personal samples
collected following the procedures specified in Appendix A.

(ii) All samples taken to satisfy the monitoring requirements of paragraph
(d) of this section shall be evaluated using the OSHA Reference Method (ORM)
specified in Appendix A of this section, or an equivalent counting method.

(iii) If an equivalent method to the ORM is used, the employer shall ensure
that the method meets the following criteria:

(A) Replicate exposure data used to establish equivalency are collected in
side-by-side field and laboratory comparisons; and

(B) The comparison indicates that 90% of the samples collected in the range
0.5 to 2.0 times the permissible limit have an accuracy range of plus or
minus 25 percent of the ORM results at a 95% confidence level as demonstrated
by a statistically valid protocol; and

(C) The equivalent method is documented and the results of the comparison
testing are maintained.

(iv) To satisfy the monitoring requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section, employers must use the results of monitoring analysis performed by
laboratories which have instituted quality assurance programs that include
the elements as prescribed in Appendix A of this section.

(7) Employee notification of monitoring results. (i) The employer shall,
within 15 working days after the receipt of the results of any monitoring
performed under the standard, notify the affected employees of these results
in writing either individually or by posting of results in an appropriate
location that is accessible to affected employees.

(ii) The written notification required by paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this
section shall contain the corrective action being taken by the employer to
reduce employee exposure to or below the TWA and/or excursion limit, wherever
monitoring results indicated that the TWA and/or excursion limit had been
exceeded.

(2) Demarcation. Regulated areas shall be demarcated from the rest of the
workplace in any manner that minimizes the number of persons who will be
exposed to asbestos.

(3) Access. Access to regulated areas shall be limited to authorized persons
or to persons authorized by the Act or regulations issued pursuant thereto.

(4) Provision of respirators. Each person entering a regulated area shall be
supplied with and required to use a respirator, selected in accordance with
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.

(5) Prohibited activities. The employer shall ensure that employees do not
eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in the regulated
areas.

(f) Methods of compliance. -- (1) Engineering controls and work practices.
(i) The employer shall institute engineering controls and work practices to
reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below the TWA and/or excursion
limit prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, except to the extent that
such controls are not feasible.

(ii) Wherever the feasible engineering controls and work practices that can
be instituted are not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below the
TWA and/or excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, the
employer shall use them to reduce employee exposure to the lowest levels
achievable by these controls and shall supplement them by the use of
respiratory protection that complies with the requirements of paragraph (g)
of this section.

(iii) For the following operations, wherever feasible engineering controls
and work practices that can be instituted are not sufficient to reduce the
employee exposure to or below the TWA and/or excursion limit prescribed in
paragraph (c) of this section, the employer shall use them to reduce employee
exposure to or below 0.5 fiber per cubic centimeter of air (as an eight-hour
time-weighted average) or 2.5 fibers/cc for 30 minutes (short-term exposure)
and shall supplement them by the use of any combination of respiratory
protection that complies with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this
section, work practices and feasible engineering controls that will reduce
employee exposure to or below the TWA and to or below the excursion limit
permissible prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section: Coupling cutoff in
primary asbestos cement pipe manufacturing; sanding in primary and secondary
asbestos cement sheet manufacturing; grinding in primary and secondary
friction product manufacturing; carding and spinning in dry textile
processes; and grinding and sanding in primary plastics manufacturing.

(iv) Local exhaust ventilation. Local exhaust ventilation and dust
collection systems shall be designed, constructed, installed, and maintained
in accordance with good practices such as those found in the American
National Standard Fundamentals Governing the Design and Operation of Local
Exhaust Systems, ANSI Z9.2-1979.

(v) Particular tools. All hand-operated and power-operated tools which would
produce or release fibers of asbestos, such as, but not limited to, saws,
scorers, abrasive wheels, and drills, shall be provided with local exhaust
ventilation systems which comply with paragraph (f)(1)(iv) of this section.

(vi) Wet methods. Insofar as practicable, asbestos shall be handled, mixed,
applied, removed, cut, scored, or otherwise worked in a wet state sufficient
to prevent the emission of airborne fibers so as to expose employees to
levels in excess of the TWA and/or excursion limit, prescribed in paragraph
(c) of this section, unless the usefulness of the product would be diminished
thereby.

(vii) [Reserved] (viii) Particular products and operations. No
asbestos cement, mortar, coating, grout, plaster, or similar material
containing asbestos, shall be removed from bags, cartons, or other containers
in which they are shipped, without being either wetted, or enclosed, or
ventilated so as to prevent effectively the release of airborne fibers
of.

(ix) Compressed air. Compressed air shall not be used to remove asbestos or
materials containing asbestos unless the compressed air is used in
conjunction with a ventilation system which effectively captures the dust
cloud created by the compressed air.

(2) Compliance program. (i) Where the TWA and/or excursion limit is
exceeded, the employer shall establish and implement a written program to
reduce employee exposure to or below the TWA and to or below the excursion
limit by means of engineering and work practice controls as required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, and by the use of respiratory protection
where required or permitted under this section.

(ii) Such programs shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to reflect
significant changes in the status of the employer's compliance program.

(iii) Written programs shall be submitted upon request for examination and
copying to the Assistant Secretary, the Director, affected employees and
designated employee representatives.

(iv) The employer shall not use employee rotation as a means of compliance
with the TWA and/or excursion limit.
(3) Specific compliance methods for brake and clutch repair:

(i) Engineering controls and work practices for brake and clutch repair and
service. During automotive brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair
and assembly operations, the employer shall institute engineering controls
and work practices to reduce employee exposure to materials containing
asbestos using a negative pressure enclosure/HEPA vacuum system method or low
pressure/wet cleaning method, which meets the detailed requirements set out
in Appendix F to this section. The employer may also comply using an
equivalent method which follows written procedures which the employer
demonstrates can achieve results equivalent to Method A in Appendix F to this
section. For facilities in which no more than 5 pair of brakes or 5 clutches
are inspected, disassembled, repaired, or assembled per week, the method set
forth in paragraph [D] of Appendix F of this section may be used.

(ii) The employer may also comply by using an equivalent method which
follows written procedures, which the employer demonstrates can achieve
equivalent exposure reductions as do the two "preferred methods." Such
demonstration must include monitoring data conducted under workplace
conditions closely resembling the process, type of asbestos containing
materials, control method, work practices and environmental conditions which
the equivalent method will be used, or objective data, which document that
under all reasonably foreseeable conditions of brake and clutch repair
applications, the method results in exposures which are equivalent to the
methods set out in Appendix F to this section.

(g) Respiratory protection -- (1) General. The employer shall provide
respirators, and ensure that they are used, where required by this section.
Respirators shall be used in the following circumstances:

(i) During the interval necessary to install or implement feasible
engineering and work practice controls;

(ii) In work operations, such as maintenance and repair activities, or other
activities for which engineering and work practice controls are not feasible;

(iii) In work situations where feasible engineering and work practice
controls are not yet sufficient to reduce exposure to or below the TWA and/or
excursion limit; and

(iv) In emergencies. (2) Respirator selection. (i) Where respirators
are required under this section, the employer shall select and provide, at no
cost to the employee, the appropriate respirator as specified in Table 1. The
employer shall select respirators from among those jointly approved as being
acceptable for protection by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
and by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
under the provisions of 30 CFR Part 11.

Note: a. Respirators assigned for high environmental concentrations
may be used at lower concentrations, or when required respirator use is
independent of concentration.

b. A high efficiency filter means a filter that is at least 99.97 percent
efficient against mono-dispersed particles of 0.3 micrometers in diameter or
larger.

(3) Respirator program. (i) Where respiratory protection is required, the
employer shall institute a respirator program in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.134(b), (d), (e), and (f).

(ii) The employer shall permit each employee who uses a filter respirator to
change the filter elements whenever an increase in breathing resistance is
detected and shall maintain an adequate supply of filter elements for this
purpose.

(iii) Employees who wear respirators shall, be permitted to leave the
regulated area to wash their faces and respirator facepieces whenever
necessary to prevent skin irritation associated with respirator use.

(iv) No employee shall be assigned to tasks requiring the use of respirators
if, based upon his or her most recent examination, an examining physician
determines that the employee will be unable to function normally wearing a
respirator, or that the safety or health of the employee or other employees
will be impaired by the use of a respirator. Such employee shall be assigned
to another job or given the opportunity to transfer to a different position
whose duties he or she is able to perform with the same employer, in the same
geographical area and with the same seniority, status, and rate of pay the
employee had just prior to such transfer, if such a different position is
available.

(4) Respirator fit testing. (i) The employer shall ensure that the
respirator issued to the employee exhibits the least possible facepiece
leakage and that the respirator is fitted properly.

(ii) For each employee wearing negative pressure respirators, employers
shall perform either quantitative or qualitative face fit tests at the time
of initial fitting and at least every six months thereafter. The qualitative
fit tests may be used only for testing the fit of half-mask respirators where
they are permitted to be worn, and shall be conducted in accordance with
Appendix C of this section. The tests shall be used to select facepieces that
provide the required protection as prescribed in Table 1, in paragraph
(g)(2)(ii) of this section.

(h) Protective work clothing and equipment -- (1) Provision and use. If an
employee is exposed to asbestos above the TWA and/or excursion limit, or
where the possibility of eye irritation exists, the employer shall provide at
no cost to the employee and ensure that the employee uses appropriate
protective work clothing and equipment such as, but not limited to:

(i) Coveralls or similar full-body work clothing;

(ii) Gloves, head coverings, and foot coverings; and

(iii) Face shields, vented goggles, or other appropriate protective
equipment which complies with 1910.133 of this Part.

(2) Removal and storage. (i) The employer shall ensure that employees remove
work clothing contaminated with asbestos only in change rooms provided in
accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section.

(ii) The employer shall ensure that no employee takes contaminated work
clothing out of the change room, except those employees authorized to do so
for the purpose of laundering, maintenance, or disposal.

(iii) Contaminated work clothing shall be placed and stored in closed
containers which prevent dispersion of the asbestos outside the container.

(iv) Containers of contaminated protective devices or work clothing which
are to be taken out of change rooms or the workplace for cleaning,
maintenance or disposal, shall bear labels in accordance with paragraph(j)(2)
of this section.

(3) Cleaning and replacement. (i) The employer shall clean, launder, repair,
or replace protective clothing and equipment required by this paragraph to
maintain their effectiveness. The employer shall provide clean protective
clothing and equipment at least weekly to each affected employee.

(ii) The employer shall prohibit the removal of asbestos from protective
clothing and equipment by blowing or shaking. (iii) Laundering of
contaminated clothing shall be done so as to prevent the release of airborne
fibers of asbestos in excess of the permissible exposure limits prescribed in
paragraph (c) of this section.

(iv) Any employer who gives contaminated clothing to another person for
laundering shall inform such person of the requirement in paragraph
(h)(3)(iii) of this section to effectively prevent the release of airborne
fibers of asbestos in excess of the permissible exposure limits.

(v) The employer shall inform any person who launders or cleans protective
clothing or equipment contaminated with asbestos of the potentially harmful
effects of exposure to asbestos.

(vi) Contaminated clothing shall be transported in sealed impermeable bags,
or other closed, impermeable containers, and labeled in accordance with
paragraph (j) of this section.

(i) Hygiene facilities and practices -- (1) Change rooms. (i) The employer
shall provide clean change rooms for employees who work in areas where their
airborne exposure to asbestos is above the TWA and/or excursion limit.

(ii) The employer shall ensure that change rooms are in accordance with
1910.141(e) of this part, and are equipped with two separate lockers or
storage facilities, so separated as to prevent contamination of the
employee's street clothes from his protective work clothing and equipment.

(2) Showers. (i) The employer shall ensure that employees who work in areas
where their airborne exposure is above the TWA and/or excursion limit shower
at the end of the work shift.

(ii) The employer shall provide shower facilities which comply with
1910.141(d)(3) of this part.

(iii) The employer shall ensure that employees who are required to shower
pursuant to paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section do not leave the workplace
wearing any clothing or equipment worn during the work shift.

(3) Lunchrooms. (i) The employer shall provide lunchroom facilities for
employees who work in areas where their airborne exposure is above the TWA
and/or excursion limit.

(ii) The employer shall ensure that lunchroom facilities have a positive
pressure, filtered air supply, and are readily accessible to employees.

(iii) The employer shall ensure that employees who work in areas where their
airborne exposure is above the PEL and/or excursion limit wash their hands
and faces prior to eating, drinking or smoking.

(iv) The employer shall ensure that employees do not enter lunchroom
facilities with protective work clothing or equipment unless surface asbestos
fibers have been removed from the clothing or equipment by vacuuming or other
method that removes dust without causing the asbestos to become airborne.

(4) Smoking in work areas. The employer shall ensure that employees do not
smoke in work areas where they are occupationally exposed to asbestos because
of activities in that work area.

(j) Communication of hazards to employees -- Introduction. This section
applies to the communication of information concerning asbestos hazards in
general industry to facilitate compliance with this standard. Asbestos
exposure in general industry occurs in a wide variety of industrial and
commercial settings. Employees who manufacture asbestos-containing products
may be exposed to asbestos fibers. Employees who repair and replace
automotive brakes and clutches may be exposed to asbestos fibers. In
addition, employees engaged in housekeeping activities in industrial
facilities with asbestos product manufacturing operations, and in public and
commercial buildings with installed asbestos containing materials may be
exposed to asbestos fibers. Most of these workers are covered by this general
industry standard, with the exception of state or local governmental
employees in non-state plan states. It should be noted that employees who
perform housekeeping activities during and after construction activities are
covered by the asbestos construction standard, 29 CFR 1926.1101, formerly
1926.58). However, housekeeping employees, regardless of industry
designation, should know whether building components they maintain may expose
them to asbestos. The same hazard communication provisions will protect
employees who perform housekeeping operations in all three asbestos
standards; general industry, construction, and shipyard employment. As noted
in the construction standard, building owners are often the only and/or best
source of information concerning the presence of previously installed
asbestos containing building materials. Therefore they, along with employers
of potentially exposed employees, are assigned specific information conveying
and retention duties under this section.

(1) Installed Asbestos Containing Material. Employers and building owners
are required to treat installed TSI and sprayed on and troweled- on surfacing
materials as ACM for purposes of this standard. These materials are
designated "presumed ACM or PACM", and are defined in paragraph (B) of this
standard. Asphalt and vinyl flooring material installed no later than 1980
also must be treated as asbestos- containing. The employer or building owner
may demonstrate that PACM and flooring material do not contain asbestos by
complying with paragraph (j)(6) of this section.

(2) Duties of employers and building and facility owners. (i) Employers and
building and facility owners shall exercise due diligence in complying with
these requirements to inform employers and employees about the presence and
location of ACM and PACM.

(ii) Building and facility owners shall maintain records of all information
required to be provided pursuant to this section and/or otherwise known to
the building owner concerning the presence, location and quantity of ACM and
PACM in the building/facility. Such records shall be kept for the duration of
ownership and shall be transferred to successive owners.

(iii) Building and facility owners shall inform employers of employees, and
employers shall inform employees who will perform housekeeping activities in
areas which contain ACM and/or PACM of the presence and location of ACM and
PACM in such areas. Identification of ACM and PACM shall be made by an
industrial hygienists or by persons whose skill and experience with respect
to identification of asbestos hazards, is the equivalent to that of
industrial hygienists and so can be demonstrated by the owner.

(3) Warning signs. (i) Posting. Warning signs shall be provided and
displayed at each regulated area. In addition, warning signs shall be posted
at all approaches to regulated areas so that an employee may read the signs
and take necessary protective steps before entering the area.

(ii) Sign specifications. The warning signs required by paragraph (j)(1)(i)
of this section shall bear the following information:

DANGER

ASBESTOS

CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD

AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY

RESPIRATORS AND PROTECTIVE CLOTHING

ARE REQUIRED IN THIS AREA

(iii) [Reserved] (iv) The employer shall ensure that employees
working in and contiguous to regulated areas comprehend the warning signs
required to be posted by paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section. Means to ensure
employee comprehension may include the use of foreign languages, pictographs
and graphics.

(ii) Label specifications. The labels shall comply with the requirements of
29 CFR 1910.1200(f) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard, and shall
include the following information:

DANGER

CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS

AVOID CREATING DUST

CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD

(5) Material safety data sheets. Employers who are manufacturers or
importers of asbestos or asbestos products shall comply with the requirements
regarding development of material safety data sheets as specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(g) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard, except as provided by
paragraph (j)(4) of this section.

(6) The provisions for labels required by paragraph (j)(2) of this section
or for material safety data sheets required by paragraph (j)(5) of this
section do not apply where:

(i) Asbestos fibers have been modified by a bonding agent, coating, binder,
or other material provided that the manufacturer can demonstrate that during
any reasonably foreseeable use, handling, storage, disposal, processing, or
transportation, no airborne concentrations of fibers of asbestos in excess of
the TWA permissible exposure level and/or excursion limit will be released or
(ii) Asbestos is present in a product in concentrations less than 1.0%. (7)
Employee information and training. (i) The employer shall institute a
training program for all employees who are exposed to airborne concentrations
of asbestos at or above the PEL and/or excursion limit and ensure their
participation in the program.

(ii) Training shall be provided prior to or at the time of initial
assignment and at least annually thereafter.

(iii) The training program shall be conducted in a manner which the employee
is able to understand. The employer shall ensure that each employee is
informed of the following:

(A) The health effects associated with asbestos exposure;

(B) The relationship between smoking and exposure to asbestos producing lung
cancer:

(C) The quantity, location, manner of use, release, and storage of asbestos,
and the specific nature of operations which could result in exposure to
asbestos;

(D) The engineering controls and work practices associated with the
employee's job assignment;

(E) The specific procedures implemented to protect employees from exposure
to asbestos, such as appropriate work practices, emergency and clean-up
procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used;

(F) The purpose, proper use, and limitations of respirators and protective
clothing, if appropriate;

(G) The purpose and a description of the medical surveillance program
required by paragraph (l) of this section;

(H) The content of this standard, including appendices. (I) The
names, addresses and phone numbers of public health organizations which
provide information, materials, and/or conduct programs concerning smoking
cessation. The employer may distribute the list of such organizations
contained in Appendix I to this section, to comply with this
requirement.

(J) The requirements for posting signs and affixing labels and the meaning
of the required legends for such signs and labels.

(iv) The employer shall also provide, at no cost to employees who perform
housekeeping operations in a facility which contains ACM or PACM, an asbestos
awareness training course, which shall at a minimum contain the following
elements: health effects of asbestos, locations of ACM and PACM in the
building/facility, recognition of ACM and PACM damage and deterioration,
requirements in this standard relating to housekeeping, and proper response
to fiber release episodes, to all employees who are or will work in areas
where ACM and/or PACM is present. Each such employee shall be so trained at
least once a year.

(v) Access to information and training materials. (A) The employer
shall make a copy of this standard and its appendices readily available
without cost to all affected employees.

(B) The employer shall provide, upon request, all materials relating to the
employee information and training program to the Assistant Secretary and the
training program to the Assistant Secretary and the Director.

(C) The employer shall inform all employees concerning the availability of
self-help smoking cessation program material. Upon employee request, the
employer shall distribute such material, consisting of NIH Publication No.
89-1647, or equivalent self-help material, which is approved or published by
a public health organization listed in Appendix I to this section.

(8) Criteria to rebut the designation of installed material as PACM. (i) At
any time, an employer and/or building owner may demonstrate, for purposes of
this standard, that PACM does not contain asbestos. Building owners and/or
employers are not required to communicate information about the presence of
building material for which such a demonstration pursuant to the requirements
of paragraph (j)(8)(ii) of this section has been made. However, in all such
cases, the information, data and analysis supporting the determination that
PACM does not contain asbestos, shall be retained pursuant to paragraph (n)
of this section.

(ii) An employer or owner may demonstrate that PACM does not contain
asbestos by the following:

(A) Having a completed inspection conducted pursuant to the requirements of
AHERA (40 CFR 763, Subpart E) which demonstrates that no asbestos is present
in the material;

(B) Performing tests of the material containing PACM which demonstrate that
no asbestos is present in the material. Such tests shall include analysis of
3 bulk samples of each homogeneous area of PACM collected in a randomly
distributed manner. The tests, evaluation and sample collection shall be
conducted by an accredited inspector or by a CIH. Analysis of samples shall
be performed by persons or laboratories with proficiency demonstrated by
current successful participation in a nationally recognized testing program
such as the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) of
the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Round Robin
for bulk samples administered by the American Industrial Hygiene Association
(AIHA) or an equivalent nationally-recognized round robin testing program.

(iii) The employer and/or building owner may demonstrate that flooring
material including associated mastic and backing does not contain asbestos,
by a determination of an industrial hygienist based upon recognized
analytical techniques showing that the material is asbestos free.

(k) Housekeeping. (1) All surfaces shall be maintained as free as
practicable of accumulations of dusts and waste containing asbestos.

(2) All spills and sudden releases of material containing asbestos shall be
cleaned up as soon as possible.

(3) Surfaces contaminated with asbestos may not be cleaned by the use of
compressed air.

(4) Vacuuming. HEPA-filtered vacuuming equipment shall be used for
vacuuming. The equipment shall be used and emptied in a manner which
minimizes the reentry of asbestos into the workplace.

(5) Shoveling, dry sweeping and dry clean-up of asbestos may be used only
where vacuuming and/or wet cleaning are not feasible.

(iii) Burnishing or dry buffing may be performed only on asbestos-
containing flooring which has sufficient finish so that the pad cannot
contact the asbestos-containing material.

(iv) Dust and debris in an area containing TSI or surfacing ACM/ PACM or
visibly deteriorated ACM, shall not be dusted or swept dry, or vacuumed
without using a HEPA filter.

(1) Medical surveillance -- (1) General -- (i) Employees covered. The
employer shall institute a medical surveillance program for all employees who
are or will be exposed to airborne concentrations of fibers of asbestos at or
above the TWA and/or excursion limit.

(ii) Examination by a physician. (A) The employer shall ensure that all
medical examinations and procedures are performed by or under the supervision
of a licensed physician, and shall be provided without cost to the employee
and at a reasonable time and place.

(B) Persons other than licensed physicians, who administer the pulmonary
function testing required by this section, shall complete a training course
in spirometry sponsored by an appropriate academic or professional
institution.

(2) Pre-placement examinations. (i) Before an employee is assigned to an
occupation exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers at or above
the TWA and/or excursion limit, a pre-placement medical examination shall be
provided or made available by the employer.

(ii) Such examination shall include, as a minimum, a medical and work
history; a complete physical examination of all systems with emphasis on the
respiratory system, the cardiovascular system and digestive tract; completion
of the respiratory disease standardized questionnaire in Appendix D, Part 1;
a chest roentgenogram (posterior- anterior 14 x 17 inches); pulmonary
function tests to include forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory
volume at 1 second (FEV(1.0)); and any additional tests deemed appropriate by
the examining physician. Interpretation and classification of chest
roentgenogram shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix E to this
section.

(ii) The scope of the medical examination shall be in conformance with the
protocol established in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section, except that the
frequency of chest roentgenogram shall be conducted in accordance with Table
2, and the abbreviated standardized questionnaire contained in, Part 2 of
Appendix D to this section shall be administered to the employee.

Table 2. -- Frequency of Chest Roentgenogram

Years since first exposure

Age of emp

15 to 35

35+ to 40

45+

0 to 10

Every 5 years

Every 5 years

Every 5 years

10+

Every 5 years

Every 2 years

Every 1 year

(4) Termination of employment examinations. (i) The employer shall provide,
or make available, a termination of employment medical examination for any
employee who has been exposed to airborne concentrations of fibers of
asbestos at or above the TWA and/or excursion limit.

(ii) The medical examination shall be in accordance with the requirements of
the periodic examinations stipulated in paragraph (l)(3) of this section, and
shall be given within 30 calendar days before or after the date of
termination of employment.

(5) Recent examinations. No medical examination is required of any employee,
if adequate records show that the employee has been examined in accordance
with any of paragraphs ((l)(2) through (l)(4)) of this section within the
past 1 year period. A pre- employment medical examination which was required
as a condition of employment by the employer, may not be used by that
employer to meet the requirements of this paragraph, unless the cost of such
examination is borne by the employer.

(6) Information provided to the physician. The employer shall provide the
following information to the examining physician:

(i) A copy of this standard and Appendices D and E. (ii) A
description of the affected employee's duties as they relate to the
employee's exposure.

(iv) A description of any personal protective and respiratory equipment used
or to be used.

(v) Information from previous medical examinations of the affected employee
that is not otherwise available to the examining physician.

(7) Physician's written opinion. (i) The employer shall obtain a written
signed opinion from the examining physician. This written opinion shall
contain the results of the medical examination and shall include:

(A) The physician's opinion as to whether the employee has any detected
medical conditions that would place the employee at an increased risk of
material health impairment from exposure to asbestos;

(B) Any recommended limitations on the employee or upon the use of personal
protective equipment such as clothing or respirators; and

(C) A statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of the
results of the medical examination and of any medical conditions resulting
from asbestos exposure that require further explanation or treatment.

(D) A statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of the
increased risk of lung cancer attributable to the combined effect of smoking
and asbestos exposure.

(ii) The employer shall instruct the physician not to reveal in the written
opinion given to the employer specific findings or diagnoses unrelated to
occupational exposure to asbestos.

(iii) The employer shall provide a copy of the physician's written opinion
to the affected employee within 30 days from its receipt.

(m) Recordkeeping. -- (1) Exposure measurements. NOTE: The employer may
utilize the services of competent organizations such as industry trade
associations and employee associations to maintain the records required by
this section. (i) The employer shall keep an accurate record of all
measurements taken to monitor employee exposure to asbestos as prescribed in
paragraph (d) of this section.

(ii) This record shall include at least the following information:

(A) The date of measurement;

(B) The operation involving exposure to asbestos which is being monitored;

(C) Sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their accuracy;

(D) Number, duration, and results of samples taken;

(E) Type of respiratory protective devices worn, if any; and

(F) Name, social security number and exposure of the employees whose
exposure are represented.

(iii) The employer shall maintain this record for at least thirty (30)
years, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.

(2) Objective data for exempted operations. (i) Where the processing, use,
or handling of products made from or containing asbestos is exempted from
other requirements of this section under paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this
section, the employer shall establish and maintain an accurate record of
objective data reasonably relied upon in support of the exemption.

(ii) The record shall include at least the following:

(A) The product qualifying for exemption;

(B) The source of the objective data;

(C) The testing protocol, results of testing, and/or analysis of the
material for the release of asbestos;

(D) A description of the operation exempted and how the data support the
exemption; and

(E) Other data relevant to the operations, materials, processing, or
employee exposures covered by the exemption.

(iii) The employer shall maintain this record for the duration of the
employer's reliance upon such objective data.

(3) Medical surveillance. (i) The employer shall establish and maintain an
accurate record for each employee subject to medical surveillance by
paragraph (l)(1)(i) of this section, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.

(ii) The record shall include at least the following information:

(A) The name and social security number of the employee;

(B) Physician's written opinions;

(C) Any employee medical complaints related to exposure to asbestos; and

(D) A copy of the information provided to the physician as required by
paragraph (l)(6) of this section.

(iii) The employer shall ensure that this record is maintained for the
duration of employment plus thirty (30) years, in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.20.

(4) Training. The employer shall maintain all employee training records for
one (1) year beyond the last date of employment of that employee.

(5) Availability. (i) The employer, upon written request, shall make all
records required to be maintained by this section available to the Assistant
Secretary and the Director for examination and copying.

(ii) The employer, upon request shall make any exposure records required by
paragraph (m)(1) of this section available for examination and copying to
affected employees, former employees, designated representatives and the
Assistant Secretary, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20(a) through (e) and (g)
through (i).

(iii) The employer, upon request, shall make employee medical records
required by paragraph (m)(2) of this section available for examination and
copying to the subject employee, to anyone having the specific written
consent of the subject employee, and the Assistant Secretary, in accordance
with 29 CFR 1910.20.

(6) Transfer of records. (i) The employer shall comply with the requirements
concerning transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR 1910.20(h).

(ii) Whenever the employer ceases to do business and there is no successor
employer to receive and retain the records for the prescribed period, the
employer shall notify the Director at least 90 days prior to disposal of
records and, upon request, transmit them to the Director.

(n) Observation of monitoring -- (1) Employee observation. The employer
shall provide affected employees or their designated representatives an
opportunity to observe any monitoring of employee exposure to asbestos
conducted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) Observation procedures. When observation of the monitoring of employee
exposure to asbestos requires entry into an area where the use of protective
clothing or equipment is required, the observer shall be provided with and be
required to use such clothing and equipment and shall comply with all other
applicable safety and health procedures.

(2) The provisions of 29 CFR 1910.1001 remain in effect until the start-up
dates of the equivalent provisions of this standard.

(3) Start-up dates. All obligations of this standard commence on the
effective date except as follows:

(i) Exposure monitoring. Initial monitoring required by paragraph (d)(2) of
this section shall be completed as soon as possible but no later than January
9, 1995.

(ii) Regulated areas. Regulated areas required to be established by
paragraph (e) of this section as a result of initial monitoring shall be set
up as soon as possible after the results of that monitoring are known and not
later than February 8, 1995.

(iii) Respiratory protection. Respiratory protection required by paragraph
(g) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible but no later than
January 9, 1995.

(iv) Hygiene and lunchroom facilities. Construction plans for change rooms,
showers, lavatories, and lunchroom facilities shall be completed as soon as
possible but no later than July 10, 1995.

(v) Employee information and training. Employee information and training
shall be provided as soon as possible but not later than April 10, 1995.

(vi) Medical surveillance. Medical surveillance not previously required by
paragraph (l) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible but no
later than January 9, 1995.

(vii) Compliance program. Written compliance programs required by paragraph
(f)(2) of this section shall be completed and available for inspection and
copying as soon as possible but no later than February 8, 1995.

(viii) Methods of compliance. The engineering and work practice controls as
required by paragraph (f)(1) shall be implemented as soon as possible but no
later than April 10, 1995.

(p) Appendices. (1) Appendices A, C, D, E, and F to this section are
incorporated as part of this section and the contents of these Appendices are
mandatory.

(2) Appendices B, F, G, H, I, and J to this section are informational and
are not intended to create any additional obligations not otherwise imposed
or to detract from any existing obligations.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number
1218-0133)

Appendix A to 1910.1001 [Amended]

4. Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by the revising the second
sentence of the introductory paragraph to read as follows:

* * * The sampling and analytical methods described below represent the
elements of the available monitoring methods (such as Appendix B of their
regulation, the most current version of the OSHA method ID-160, or the most
current version of the NIOSH Method 7400). * * * * * * * *

5. Paragraph 2. of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1001 entitled
Sampling and Analytical Procedure is amended by adding the following sentence
to the end:

6. Paragraph 11 of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1001 entitled
Sampling and Analytical Procedure is revised to read as follows:

* * * * *

11. Each set of samples taken will include 10% field blanks or a minimum of
2 field blanks. These blanks must come from the same lot as the filters used
for sample collection. The field blank results shall be averaged and
subtracted from the analytical results before reporting. A set consists of
any sample or group of samples for which an evaluation for this standard must
be made. Any samples represented by a field blank having a fiber count in
excess of the detection limit of the method being used shall be rejected.

* * * * *

7. Paragraph 2 of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1001 entitled
Quality Control Procedures is amended by redesignating it as paragraph 2a and
by adding paragraph 2b to read as follows:

* * * * *

2.b. All laboratories should also participate in a national sample testing
scheme such as the Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT), or the
Asbestos Registry sponsored by the American Industrial Hygiene Association
(AIHA).

A known volume of air is drawn through a 25-mm diameter cassette containing a mixed-cellulose ester filter. The cassette must be equipped with an electrically conductive 50-mm extension cowl. The sampling time and rate are chosen to give a fiber density of between 100 to 1,300 fibers/mm(2) on the filter

Recommended Sampling Rate

0.5 to 5.0 liters/minute (L/min)

Recommended Air Volumes:

Minimum

25 L

Maximum

2,400 L

Analytical Procedure: A portion of the sample filter is cleared and prepared
for asbestos fiber counting by Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) at 400X.

Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method are for
descriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by USDOL-OSHA.
Similar products from other sources can be substituted.

1. Introduction

This method describes the collection of airborne asbestos fibers using
calibrated sampling pumps with mixed-cellulose ester (MCE) filters and
analysis by phase contrast microscopy (PCM). Some terms used are unique to
this method and are defined below:

Asbestos: A term for naturally occurring fibrous minerals. Asbestos includes
chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite (cummingtonite- grunerite asbestos),
tremolite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, and any of
these minerals that have been chemically treated and/or altered. The precise
chemical formulation of each species will vary with the location from which
it was mined. Nominal compositions are listed:

Chrysotile

Mg(3)Si(2)O(5)(OH)(4)

Crocidolite

Na(2)Fe(3)(2)+Fe2(3)+Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Amosite

(Mg,Fe)(7)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Tremolite-actinolite

Ca(2)(Mg,Fe)(5)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Anthophyllite

(Mg,Fe)(7)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos which meets the criteria specified below
for a fiber.

Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of a fiber to it's diameter (e.g. 3:1,
5:1 aspect ratios).

Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by comminution of minerals,
especially those characterized by parallel sides and a moderate aspect ratio
(usually less than 20:1).

Detection Limit: The number of fibers necessary to be 95% certain that the
result is greater than zero.

Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of excluding certain
kinds of fibers from the fiber count because they do not appear to be
asbestos.

Fiber: A particle that is 5 um or longer, with a length- to-width ratio of 3
to 1 or longer.

Field: The area within the graticule circle that is superimposed on the
microscope image.

Set: The samples which are taken, submitted to the laboratory, analyzed, and
for which, interim or final result reports are generated.

Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite: The non-asbestos form of these
minerals which meet the definition of a fiber. It includes any of these
minerals that have been chemically treated and/or altered.

Walton-Beckett Graticule: An eyepiece graticule specifically designed for
asbestos fiber counting. It consists of a circle with a projected diameter of
100 # 2 um (area of about 0.00785 mm(2)) with a crosshair having tic-marks at
3-um intervals in one direction and 5-um in the orthogonal direction. There
are marks around the periphery of the circle to demonstrate the proper sizes
and shapes of fibers. This design is reproduced in Figure 2. The disk is
placed in one of the microscope eyepieces so that the design is superimposed
on the field of view.

1.1. History

Early surveys to determine asbestos exposures were conducted using impinger
counts of total dust with the counts expressed as million particles per cubic
foot. The British Asbestos Research Council recommended filter membrane
counting in 1969. In July 1969, the Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health
published a filter membrane method for counting asbestos fibers in the United
States. This method was refined by NIOSH and published as P&CAM 239. On May
29, 1971, OSHA specified filter membrane sampling with phase contrast
counting for evaluation of asbestos exposures at work sites in the United
States. The use of this technique was again required by OSHA in 1986. Phase
contrast microscopy has continued to be the method of choice for the
measurement of occupational exposure to asbestos.

1.2. Principle

Air is drawn through a MCE filter to capture airborne asbestos fibers. A
wedge shaped portion of the filter is removed, placed on a glass microscope
slide and made transparent. A measured area (field) is viewed by PCM. All the
fibers meeting a defined criteria for asbestos are counted and considered a
measure of the airborne asbestos concentration.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

There are four main advantages of PCM over other methods:

(1) The technique is specific for fibers. Phase contrast is a fiber counting
technique which excludes non-fibrous particles from the analysis.

(2) The technique is inexpensive and does not require specialized knowledge
to carry out the analysis for total fiber counts.

(3) The analysis is quick and can be performed on-site for rapid
determination of air concentrations of asbestos fibers.

(4) The technique has continuity with historical epidemiological studies so
that estimates of expected disease can be inferred from long-term
determinations of asbestos exposures.

The main disadvantage of PCM is that it does not positively identify
asbestos fibers. Other fibers which are not asbestos may be included in the
count unless differential counting is performed. This requires a great deal
of experience to adequately differentiate asbestos from non-asbestos fibers.
Positive identification of asbestos must be performed by polarized light or
electron microscopy techniques. A further disadvantage of PCM is that the
smallest visible fibers are about 0.2 um in diameter while the finest
asbestos fibers may be as small as 0.02 um in diameter. For some exposures,
substantially more fibers may be present than are actually counted.

1.4. Workplace Exposure

Asbestos is used by the construction industry in such products as shingles,
floor tiles, asbestos cement, roofing felts, insulation and acoustical
products. Non-construction uses include brakes, clutch facings, paper,
paints, plastics, and fabrics. One of the most significant exposures in the
workplace is the removal and encapsulation of asbestos in schools, public
buildings, and homes. Many workers have the potential to be exposed to
asbestos during these operations.

About 95% of the asbestos in commercial use in the United States is
chrysotile. Crocidolite and amosite make up most of the remainder.
Anthophyllite and tremolite or actinolite are likely to be encountered as
contaminants in various industrial products.

1.5. Physical Properties

Asbestos fiber possesses a high tensile strength along its axis, is
chemically inert, non-combustible, and heat resistant. It has a high
electrical resistance and good sound absorbing properties. It can be weaved
into cables, fabrics or other textiles, and also matted into asbestos papers,
felts, or mats.

2. Range and Detection Limit

2.1. The ideal counting range on the filter is 100 to 1,300 fibers/mm(2).
With a Walton-Beckett graticule this range is equivalent to 0.8 to 10
fibers/field. Using NIOSH counting statistics, a count of 0.8 fibers/field
would give an approximate coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.13.

2.2. The detection limit for this method is 4.0 fibers per 100 fields or 5.5
fibers/mm(2). This was determined using an equation to estimate the maximum
CV possible at a specific concentration (95% confidence) and a Lower Control
Limit of zero. The CV value was then used to determine a corresponding
concentration from historical CV vs fiber relationships. As an example:

Lower Control Limit (95% Confidence) = AC - 1.645(CV)(AC)

Where:

AC = Estimate of the airborne fiber concentration (fibers/cc)

Setting the Lower Control Limit = 0 and solving for CV:

0 = AC - 1.645(CV)(AC) CV = 0.61

This value was compared with CV vs. count curves. The count at which CV =
0.61 for Leidel-Busch counting statistics or for an OSHA Salt Lake Technical
Center (OSHA-SLTC) CV curve (see Appendix A for further information) was 4.4
fibers or 3.9 fibers per 100 fields, respectively. Although a lower detection
limit of 4 fibers per 100 fields is supported by the OSHA-SLTC data, both
data sets support the 4.5 fibers per 100 fields value.

3. Method Performance -- Precision and Accuracy

Precision is dependent upon the total number of fibers counted and the
uniformity of the fiber distribution on the filter. A general rule is to
count at least 20 and not more than 100 fields. The count is discontinued
when 100 fibers are counted, provided that 20 fields have already been
counted. Counting more than 100 fibers results in only a small gain in
precision. As the total count drops below 10 fibers, an accelerated loss of
precision is noted.

At this time, there is no known method to determine the absolute accuracy of
the asbestos analysis. Results of samples prepared through the Proficiency
Analytical Testing (PAT) Program and analyzed by the OSHA-SLTC showed no
significant bias when compared to PAT reference values. The PAT samples were
analyzed from 1987 to 1989 (N=36) and the concentration range was from 120 to
1,300 fibers/mm(2).

4. Interferences

Fibrous substances, if present, may interfere with asbestos analysis.

Some common fibers are:

Fiber glass anhydrite plant fibers. Perlite veins.

Gypsum............................. Some synthetic fibers.

Membrane structures................ Sponge spicules and diatoms.

Microorganisms..................... Wollastonite.

The use of electron microscopy or optical tests such as polarized light, and
dispersion staining may be used to differentiate these materials from
asbestos when necessary.

Notes: (a) Do not re-use cassettes. (b) Fully conductive cassettes
are required to reduce fiber loss to the sides of the cassette due to
electrostatic attraction.
(c) Purchase filters which have been selected by the manufacturer for
asbestos counting or analyze representative filters for fiber background
before use. Discard the filter lot if more than 4 fibers/100 fields are
found.
(d) To decrease the possibility of contamination, the sampling system
(filter-backup pad-cassette) for asbestos is usually preassembled by the
manufacturer.

5.1.2. Gel bands for sealing cassettes.

5.1.3. Sampling pump. Each
pump must be a battery operated, self-contained unit small enough to be
placed on the monitored employee and not interfere with the work being
performed. The pump must be capable of sampling at 2.5 liters per minute
(L/min) for the required sampling time.

5.2.1. Seal the point where the base and cowl of each cassette meet
(see Figure 3) with a gel band or tape.

5.2.2. Charge the pumps completely before beginning.

5.2.3. Connect
each pump to a calibration cassette with an appropriate length of 6-mm bore
plastic tubing. Do not use luer connectors -- the type of cassette specified
above has built-in adapters.

5.2.4. Select an appropriate flow rate for the situation being monitored.
The sampling flow rate must be between 0.5 and 5.0 L/min for personal
sampling and is commonly set between 1 and 2 L/min. Always choose a flow rate
that will not produce overloaded filters.

5.2.5. Calibrate each sampling pump before and after sampling with a
calibration cassette in-line (Note: This calibration cassette should be from
the same lot of cassettes used for sampling). Use a primary standard (e.g.
bubble burette) to calibrate each pump. If possible, calibrate at the
sampling site.

Note: If sampling site calibration is not possible, environmental
influences may affect the flow rate. The extent is dependent on the type of
pump used. Consult with the pump manufacturer to determine dependence on
environmental influences. If the pump is affected by temperature and pressure
changes, use the formula in Appendix B to calculate the actual flow rate.

5.2.6. Connect each pump to the base of each sampling cassette with flexible
tubing. Remove the end cap of each cassette and take each air sample open
face. Assure that each sample cassette is held open side down in the
employee's breathing zone during sampling. The distance from the nose/mouth
of the employee to the cassette should be about 10 cm. Secure the cassette on
the collar or lapel of the employee using spring clips or other similar
devices.

5.2.7. A suggested minimum air volume when sampling to determine TWA
compliance is 25 L. For Excursion Limit (30 min sampling time) evaluations, a
minimum air volume of 48 L is recommended.

5.2.8. The most significant problem when sampling for asbestos is
overloading the filter with non-asbestos dust. Suggested maximum air sample
volumes for specific environments are:

Environment

Air vol. (L)

Asbestos removal operations (visible dust)

100

Asbestos removal operations (little dust)

240

Office environments

400 to 2,400

Caution: Do not overload the filter with dust. High levels of non-fibrous
dust particles may obscure fibers on the filter and lower the count or make
counting impossible. If more than about 25 to 30% of the field area is
obscured with dust, the result may be biased low. Smaller air volumes may be
necessary when there is excessive non-asbestos dust in the air.

While sampling, observe the filter with a small flashlight. If there is a
visible layer of dust on the filter, stop sampling, remove and seal the
cassette, and replace with a new sampling assembly. The total dust loading
should not exceed 1 mg.

5.2.9. Blank samples are used to determine if any contamination has occurred
during sample handling. Prepare two blanks for the first 1 to 20 samples. For
sets containing greater than 20 samples, prepare blanks as 10% of the
samples. Handle blank samples in the same manner as air samples with one
exception: Do not draw any air through the blank samples. Open the blank
cassette in the place where the sample cassettes are mounted on the employee.
Hold it open for about 30 seconds. Close and seal the cassette appropriately.
Store blanks for shipment with the sample cassettes.

5.2.10. Immediately after sampling, close and seal each cassette with the
base and plastic plugs. Do not touch or puncture the filter membrane as this
will invalidate the analysis.

5.2.11. Attach a seal (OSHA-21 or equivalent) around each cassette in such a
way as to secure the end cap plug and base plug. Tape the ends of the seal
together since the seal is not long enough to be wrapped end-to-end. Also
wrap tape around the cassette at each joint to keep the seal secure.

5.3. Sample Shipment

5.3.1. Send the samples to the laboratory with paperwork requesting asbestos
analysis. List any known fibrous interferences present during sampling on the
paperwork. Also, note the workplace operation(s) sampled.

5.3.2. Secure and handle the samples in such that they will not rattle
during shipment nor be exposed to static electricity. Do not ship samples in
expanded polystyrene peanuts, vermiculite, paper shreds, or excelsior. Tape
sample cassettes to sheet bubbles and place in a container that will cushion
the samples without rattling.

6.1.1. Acetone is extremely flammable and precautions must be taken not to
ignite it. Avoid using large containers or quantities of acetone. Transfer
the solvent in a ventilated laboratory hood. Do not use acetone near any open
flame. For generation of acetone vapor, use a spark free heat source.

6.1.2. Any asbestos spills should be cleaned up immediately to prevent
dispersal of fibers. Prudence should be exercised to avoid contamination of
laboratory facilities or exposure of personnel to asbestos. Asbestos spills
should be cleaned up with wet methods and/ or a High Efficiency
Particulate-Air (HEPA) filtered vacuum.

Caution: Do not use a vacuum without a HEPA filter -- It will disperse fine
asbestos fibers in the air.

6.2. Equipment

6.2.1. Phase contrast microscope with binocular or trinocular head.

6.2.2. Widefield or Huygenian 10X eyepieces (Note: The eyepiece containing
the graticule must be a focusing eyepiece. Use a 40X phase objective with a
numerical aperture of 0.65 to 0.75).

A way to prepare standard asbestos samples of known concentration has not
been developed. It is possible to prepare replicate samples of nearly equal
concentration. This has been performed through the PAT program. These
asbestos samples are distributed by the AIHA to participating laboratories.

Since only about one-fourth of a 25-mm sample membrane is required for an
asbestos count, any PAT sample can serve as a "standard" for replicate
counting.

6.5. Sample Mounting

Note: See Safety Precautions in Section 6.1. before proceeding. The
objective is to produce samples with a smooth (non-grainy) background in a
medium with a refractive index of approximately 1.46. The technique below
collapses the filter for easier focusing and produces permanent mounts which
are useful for quality control and interlaboratory comparison.

An aluminum block or similar device is required for sample preparation. A
drawing is shown in Figure 4.

6.5.1. Heat the aluminum block to about 70 deg. C. The hot block should not
be used on any surface that can be damaged by either the heat or from
exposure to acetone.

6.5.2. Ensure that the glass slides and cover glasses are free of dust and
fibers.

6.5.3. Remove the top plug to prevent a vacuum when the cassette is opened.
Clean the outside of the cassette if necessary. Cut the seal and/or tape on
the cassette with a razor blade. Very carefully separate the base from the
extension cowl, leaving the filter and backup pad in the base.

6.5.4. With a rocking motion cut a triangular wedge from the filter using
the scalpel. This wedge should be one-sixth to one- fourth of the filter.
Grasp the filter wedge with the forceps on the perimeter of the filter which
was clamped between the cassette pieces. DO NOT TOUCH the filter with your
finger. Place the filter on the glass slide sample side up. Static
electricity will usually keep the filter on the slide until it is cleared.

6.5.5. Place the tip of the micropipette containing about 200 uL acetone
into the aluminum block. Insert the glass slide into the receiving slot in
the aluminum block. Inject the acetone into the block with slow, steady
pressure on the plunger while holding the pipette firmly in place. Wait 3 to
5 seconds for the filter to clear, then remove the pipette and slide from the
aluminum block.

6.5.6. Immediately (less than 30 seconds) place 2.5 to 3.5 uL of triacetin
on the filter (Note: Waiting longer than 30 seconds will result in increased
index of refraction and decreased contrast between the fibers and the
preparation. This may also lead to separation of the cover slip from the
slide).

6.5.7. Lower a cover slip gently onto the filter at a slight angle to reduce
the possibility of forming air bubbles. If more than 30 seconds have elapsed
between acetone exposure and triacetin application, glue the edges of the
cover slip to the slide with lacquer or nail polish.

6.5.8. If clearing is slow, warm the slide for 15 min on a hot plate having
a surface temperature of about 50 deg.C to hasten clearing. The top of the
hot block can be used if the slide is not heated too long.

6.5.9. Counting may proceed immediately after clearing and mounting are
completed.

6.6. Sample Analysis

Completely align the microscope according to the manufacturer's
instructions. Then, align the microscope using the following general
alignment routine at the beginning of every counting session and more often
if necessary.

6.6.1. Alignment

(1) Clean all optical surfaces. Even a small amount of dirt can
significantly degrade the image.

(2) Rough focus the objective on a sample.

(3) Close down the field
iris so that it is visible in the field of view. Focus the image of the iris
with the condenser focus. Center the image of the iris in the field of
view.

(4) Install the phase telescope and focus on the phase rings. Critically
center the rings. Misalignment of the rings results in astigmatism which will
degrade the image.

(5) Place the phase-shift test slide on the microscope stage and focus on
the lines. The analyst must see line set 3 and should see at least parts of 4
and 5 but, not see line set 6 or 6. A microscope/microscopist combination
which does not pass this test may not be used.

6.6.2. Counting Fibers

(1) Place the prepared sample slide on the mechanical stage of the
microscope. Position the center of the wedge under the objective lens and
focus upon the sample.

(2) Start counting from one end of the wedge and progress along a radial
line to the other end (count in either direction from perimeter to wedge
tip). Select fields randomly, without looking into the eyepieces, by slightly
advancing the slide in one direction with the mechanical stage control.

(3) Continually scan over a range of focal planes (generally the upper 10 to
15 um of the filter surface) with the fine focus control during each field
count. Spend at least 5 to 15 seconds per field.

(4) Most samples will contain asbestos fibers with fiber diameters less than
1 um. Look carefully for faint fiber images. The small diameter fibers will
be very hard to see. However, they are an important contribution to the total
count.

(5) Count only fibers equal to or longer than 5 um. Measure the length of
curved fibers along the curve.

(6) Count fibers which have a length to width ratio of 3:1 or
greater.

(7) Count all the fibers in at least 20 fields. Continue counting
until either 100 fibers are counted or 100 fields have been viewed; whichever
occurs first. Count all the fibers in the final field.

(8) Fibers lying entirely within the boundary of the Walton- Beckett
graticule field shall receive a count of 1. Fibers crossing the boundary
once, having one end within the circle shall receive a count of 1/2. Do not
count any fiber that crosses the graticule boundary more than once. Reject
and do not count any other fibers even though they may be visible outside the
graticule area. If a fiber touches the circle, it is considered to cross the
line.

(9) Count bundles of fibers as one fiber unless individual fibers can be
clearly identified and each individual fiber is clearly not connected to
another counted fiber. See Figure 2 for counting conventions.

(10) Record the number of fibers in each field in a consistent way such that
filter non-uniformity can be assessed.

(11) Regularly check phase ring alignment.

(12) When an agglomerate
(mass of material) covers more than 25% of the field of view, reject the
field and select another. Do not include it in the number of fields
counted.

(13) Perform a "blind recount" of 1 in every 10 filter wedges (slides).
Re-label the slides using a person other than the original counter.

6.7. Fiber Identification

As previously mentioned in Section 1.3., PCM does not provide positive
confirmation of asbestos fibers. Alternate differential counting techniques
should be used if discrimination is desirable. Differential counting may
include primary discrimination based on morphology, polarized light analysis
of fibers, or modification of PCM data by Scanning Electron or Transmission
Electron Microscopy.

A great deal of experience is required to routinely and correctly perform
differential counting. It is discouraged unless it is legally necessary.
Then, only if a fiber is obviously not asbestos should it be excluded from
the count. Further discussion of this technique can be found in reference
8.10.

If there is a question whether a fiber is asbestos or not, follow the rule:

"WHEN IN DOUBT, COUNT."

6.8. Analytical Recommendations -- Quality Control System

6.8.1. All
individuals performing asbestos analysis must have taken the NIOSH course for
sampling and evaluating airborne asbestos or an equivalent course.

6.8.2. Each laboratory engaged in asbestos counting shall set up a slide
trading arrangement with at least two other laboratories in order to compare
performance and eliminate inbreeding of error. The slide exchange occurs at
least semiannually. The round robin results shall be posted where all
analysts can view individual analyst's results.

6.8.4. Each analyst shall select and count prepared slides from a "slide
bank". These are quality assurance counts. The slide bank shall be prepared
using uniformly distributed samples taken from the workload. Fiber densities
should cover the entire range routinely analyzed by the laboratory. These
slides are counted blind by all counters to establish an original standard
deviation. This historical distribution is compared with the quality
assurance counts. A counter must have 95% of all quality control samples
counted within three standard deviations of the historical mean. This count
is then integrated into a new historical mean and standard deviation for the
slide.

The analyses done by the counters to establish the slide bank may be used
for an interim quality control program if the data are treated in a proper
statistical fashion.

7. CALCULATIONS

7.1. Calculate the estimated airborne asbestos fiber concentration on the
filter sample using the following formula: Where:

AC = Airborne fiber concentration

(For Equation, see paper copy)

FB

=

Total number of fibers greater than 5 um counted

FL

=

Total number of fields counted on the filter

BFB

=

Total number of fibers greater than 5 um counted in the blank

BFL

=

Total number of fields counted on the blank

ECA

=

Effective collecting area of filter (385 mm(2) nominal for a 25-mm filter.)

FR

=

Pump flow rate (L/min)

MFA

=

Microscope count field area (mm(2)). This is 0.00785 mm(2) for a Walton-Beckett Graticule

T

=

Sample collection time (min)

1,000

=

Conversion of L to cc

Note: The collection area of a filter is seldom equal to 385 mm(2).
It is appropriate for laboratories to routinely monitor the exact diameter
using an inside micrometer. The collection area is calculated according to
the formula:

Area = Pie(d/2)(2)

7.2. Short-cut Calculation

Since a given analyst always has the same interpupillary distance, the
number of fields per filter for a particular analyst will remain constant for
a given size filter. The field size for that analyst is constant (i.e. the
analyst is using an assigned microscope and is not changing the reticle).

For example, if the exposed area of the filter is always 385 mm(2) and the
size of the field is always 0.00785 mm(2), the number of fields per filter
will always be 49,000. In addition it is necessary to convert liters of air
to cc. These three constants can then be combined such that ECA/(1,000 X
MFA)=49. The previous equation simplifies to:

(For Equation, see paper copy)

7.3. Recount Calculations

As mentioned in step 13 of Section 6.6.2., a "blind recount" of 10% of the
slides is performed. In all cases, differences will be observed between the
first and second counts of the same filter wedge. Most of these differences
will be due to chance alone, that is, due to the random variability
(precision) of the count method. Statistical recount criteria enables one to
decide whether observed differences can be explained due to chance alone or
are probably due to systematic differences between analysts, microscopes, or
other biasing factors.

The following recount criterion is for a pair of counts that estimate AC in
fibers/cc. The criterion is given at the type-I error level. That is, there
is 5% maximum risk that we will reject a pair of counts for the reason that
one might be biased, when the large observed difference is really due to
chance.

Reject a pair of counts if:

(For Equation, see paper copy)

Where:

AC1

= lower estimated airborne fiber concentration

AC2

= higher estimated airborne fiber concentration

AC(avg)

= average of the two concentration estimates

CV(FB)

= CV for the average of the two concentration estimates

If a pair of counts are rejected by this criterion then, recount the rest of
the filters in the submitted set. Apply the test and reject any other pairs
failing the test. Rejection shall include a memo to the industrial hygienist
stating that the sample failed a statistical test for homogeneity and the
true air concentration may be significantly different than the reported
value.

7.4. Reporting Results

Report results to the industrial hygienist as fibers/cc. Use two significant
figures. If multiple analyses are performed on a sample, an average of the
results is to be reported unless any of the results can be rejected for
cause.

The OSHA asbestos regulations require each laboratory to establish a quality
control program. The following is presented as an example of how the
OSHA-SLTC constructed its internal CV curve as part of meeting this
requirement. Data for the CV curve shown below is from 395 samples collected
during OSHA compliance inspections and analyzed from October 1980 through
April 1986.

Each sample was counted by 2 to 5 different counters independently of one
another. The standard deviation and the CV statistic was calculated for each
sample. This data was then plotted on a graph of CV vs. fibers/mm(2). A least
squares regression was performed using the following equation:

This correction is used if a difference greater than 5% in ambient
temperature and/or pressure is noted between calibration and sampling sites
and the pump does not compensate for the differences.

(For Equation, see paper copy)

Where:

Q(act)

=

actual flow rate

Q(cal)

=

calibrated flow rate (if a rotameter was used, the rotameter value)

P(cal)

=

uncorrected air pressure at calibration

P(act)

=

uncorrected air pressure at sampling site

T(act)

=

temperature at sampling site (K)

T(cal)

=

temperature at calibration (K)

Walton-Beckett Graticule

When ordering the Graticule for asbestos counting, specify the exact disc
diameter needed to fit the ocular of the microscope and the diameter (mm) of
the circular counting area. Instructions for measuring the dimensions
necessary are listed:

(1) Insert any available graticule into the focusing eyepiece and focus so
that the graticule lines are sharp and clear.

(2) Align the microscope.

(3) Place a stage micrometer on the
microscope object stage and focus the microscope on the graduated
lines.

(5) Remove the graticule from the microscope and measure its actual grid
length, AL (mm). This can be accomplished by using a mechanical stage fitted
with verniers, or a jeweler's loupe with a direct reading scale.

(6) Let D=100 um. Calculate the circle diameter, d(c)(mm), for the
Walton-Beckett graticule and specify the diameter when making a purchase:

d(c)

=

AL x D -- -- -- -- -PL

Example: If PL=108 um, AL=2.93 mm and D=100 um, then,

d(c)

=

2.93 x 100 -- -- -- -- -- -- - 108

=

2.71mm

(7) Each eyepiece-objective-reticle combination on the microscope must be
calibrated. Should any of the three be changed (by zoom adjustment,
disassembly, replacement, etc.), the combination must be recalibrated.
Calibration may change if interpupillary distance is changed. Measure the
field diameter, D (acceptable range: 100 plus or minus 2 um) with a stage
micrometer upon receipt of the graticule from the manufacturer. Determine the
field area (mm(2)).

9. Appendix D to Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by revising the first sentence to
read as follows:

Appendix D to 1910.1001 -- Medical Questionnaires; Mandatory

This mandatory appendix contains the medical questionnaires that must be
administered to all employees who are exposed to asbestos above the
permissible exposure limit, and who will therefore be included in their
employer's medical surveillance program. * * * * * * * *

This mandatory appendix specifies engineering controls and work practices
that must be implemented by the employer during automotive brake and clutch
inspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly operations. Proper use of these
engineering controls and work practices will reduce employees' asbestos
exposure below the permissible exposure level during clutch and brake
inspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly operations. The employer shall
institute engineering controls and work practices using either the method set
forth in paragraph [A] or paragraph [B] of this appendix, or any other method
which the employer can demonstrate to be equivalent in terms of reducing
employee exposure to asbestos as defined and which meets the requirements
described in paragraph [C] of this appendix, for those facilities in which no
more than 5 pairs of brakes or 5 clutches are inspected, disassembled,
reassembled and/or repaired per week, the method set forth in paragraph [D]
of this appendix may be used:

[A] Negative Pressure Enclosure/HEPA Vacuum System Method

(1) The brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly
operations shall be enclosed to cover and contain the clutch or brake
assembly and to prevent the release of asbestos fibers into the worker's
breathing zone.

(2) The enclosure shall be sealed tightly and thoroughly inspected for leaks
before work begins on brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair, and
assembly.

(3) The enclosure shall be such that the worker can clearly see the
operation and shall provide impermeable sleeves through which the worker can
handle the brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair and assembly. The
integrity of the sleeves and ports shall be examined before work begins.

(4) A HEPA-filtered vacuum shall be employed to maintain the enclosure under
negative pressure throughout the operation. Compressed-air may be used to
remove asbestos fibers or particles from the enclosure.

(5) The HEPA vacuum shall be used first to loosen the asbestos containing
residue from the brake and clutch parts and then to evacuate the loosened
asbestos containing material from the enclosure and capture the material in
the vacuum filter.

(6) The vacuum's filter, when full, shall be first wetted with a fine mist
of water, then removed and placed immediately in an impermeable container,
labeled according to paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of this section and disposed of
according to paragraph (k) of this section.

(7) Any spills or releases of asbestos containing waste material from inside
of the enclosure or vacuum hose or vacuum filter shall be immediately cleaned
up and disposed of according to paragraph (k) of the section.

[B] Low Pressure/Wet Cleaning Method

(1) A catch basin shall be placed under the brake assembly, positioned to
avoid splashes and spills.

(2) The reservoir shall contain water containing an organic solvent or
wetting agent. The flow of liquid shall be controlled such that the brake
assembly is gently flooded to prevent the asbestos-containing brake dust from
becoming airborne.

(3) The aqueous solution shall be allowed to flow between the brake drum and
brake support before the drum is removed.

(4) After removing the brake drum, the wheel hub and back of the brake
assembly shall be thoroughly wetted to suppress dust.

(5) The brake support plate, brake shoes and brake components used to attach
the brake shoes shall be thoroughly washed before removing the old shoes.

(6) In systems using filters, the filters, when full, shall be first wetted
with a fine mist of water, then removed and placed immediately in an
impermeable container, labeled according to paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of this
section and disposed of according to paragraph (k) of this section.

(7) Any spills of asbestos-containing aqueous solution or any
asbestos-containing waste material shall be cleaned up immediately and
disposed of according to paragraph (k) of this section.

(8) The use of dry brushing during low pressure/wet cleaning operations is
prohibited.

[C] Equivalent Methods

An equivalent method is one which has sufficient written detail so that it
can be reproduced and has been demonstrated that the exposures resulting from
the equivalent method are equal to or less than the exposures which would
result from the use of the method described in paragraph [A] of this
appendix. For purposes of making this comparison, the employer shall assume
that exposures resulting from the use of the method described in paragraph
[A] of this appendix shall not exceed 0.004 f/cc, as measured by the OSHA
reference method and as averaged over at least 18 personal samples.

[D] Wet Method.

(1) A spray bottle, hose nozzle, or other implement capable of delivering a
fine mist of water or amended water or other delivery system capable of
delivering water at low pressure, shall be used to first thoroughly wet the
brake and clutch parts. Brake and clutch components shall then be wiped clean
with a cloth.

(2) The cloth shall be placed in an impermeable container, labelled
according to paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of the standard and then disposed of
according to paragraph (k) of the standard, or the cloth shall be laundered
in a way to prevent the release of asbestos fibers in excess of 0.1 fiber per
cubic centimeter of air.

(3) Any spills of solvent or any asbestos containing waste material shall be
cleaned up immediately according to paragraph (k) of the standard. (4) The
use of dry brushing during the wet method operations is prohibited.

14. Appendix H of Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by revising the first sentence
of the second paragraph of section IV. entitled Surveillance and Preventive
Considerations to read as follows:

* * * * *

The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance program for all
employees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at or above the permissible
exposure limit (0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air). * * * * * *
* *

Collect approximately 1 to 2 grams of each type of material and place into
separate 20 mL scintillation vials.

Analytical Procedure

A portion of each separate phase is analyzed by gross examination,
phase-polar examination, and central stop dispersion microscopy.

Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method are for
descriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by USDOL-OSHA.
Similar products from other sources may be substituted.

1. Introduction

This method describes the collection and analysis of asbestos bulk materials
by light microscopy techniques including phase- polar illumination and
central-stop dispersion microscopy. Some terms unique to asbestos analysis
are defined below:

Amphibole: A family of minerals whose crystals are formed by long, thin
units which have two thin ribbons of double chain silicate with a brucite
ribbon in between. The shape of each unit is similar to an "I beam". Minerals
important in asbestos analysis include cummingtonite-grunerite, crocidolite,
tremolite-actinolite and anthophyllite.

Asbestos: A term for naturally occurring fibrous minerals. Asbestos includes
chrysotile, cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos (amosite), anthophyllite
asbestos, tremolite asbestos, crocidolite, actinolite asbestos and any of
these minerals which have been chemically treated or altered. The precise
chemical formulation of each species varies with the location from which it
was mined. Nominal compositions are listed:

Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos meeting the criteria for a fiber. (See
section 3.5.)

Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of a fiber to its
diameter usually defined as "length : width", e.g. 3:1.

Brucite: A sheet mineral with the composition Mg(OH)(2).

Central
Stop Dispersion Staining (microscope): This is a dark field microscope
technique that images particles using only light refracted by the particle,
excluding light that travels through the particle unrefracted. This is
usually accomplished with a McCrone objective or other arrangement which
places a circular stop with apparent aperture equal to the objective aperture
in the back focal plane of the microscope.

Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by the comminution of minerals,
especially those characterized by relatively parallel sides and moderate
aspect ratio.

Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of excluding certain
kinds of fibers from a phase contrast asbestos count because they are not
asbestos.

Fiber: A particle longer than or equal to 5 um with a length to width ratio
greater than or equal to 3:1. This may include cleavage fragments. (see
section 3.5 of this appendix).

Phase Contrast: Contrast obtained in the microscope by causing light
scattered by small particles to destructively interfere with unscattered
light, thereby enhancing the visibility of very small particles and particles
with very low intrinsic contrast.

Phase Contrast Microscope: A microscope configured with a phase mask pair to
create phase contrast. The technique which uses this is called Phase Contrast
Microscopy (PCM).

Phase-Polar Analysis: This is the use of polarized light in a phase contrast
microscope. It is used to see the same size fibers that are visible in air
filter analysis. Although fibers finer than 1 um are visible, analysis of
these is inferred from analysis of larger bundles that are usually present.

Phase-Polar Microscope: The phase-polar microscope is a phase contrast
microscope which has an analyzer, a polarizer, a first order red plate and a
rotating phase condenser all in place so that the polarized light image is
enhanced by phase contrast.

Sealing Encapsulant: This is a product which can be applied, preferably by
spraying, onto an asbestos surface which will seal the surface so that fibers
cannot be released.

Serpentine: A mineral family consisting of minerals with the general
composition Mg(3)(Si(2)O(5)(OH)(4) having the magnesium in brucite layer over
a silicate layer. Minerals important in asbestos analysis included in this
family are chrysotile, lizardite, antigorite.

1.1. History

Light microscopy has been used for well over 100 years for the determination
of mineral species. This analysis is carried out using specialized polarizing
microscopes as well as bright field microscopes. The identification of
minerals is an on-going process with many new minerals described each year.
The first recorded use of asbestos was in Finland about 2500 B.C. where the
material was used in the mud wattle for the wooden huts the people lived in
as well as strengthening for pottery. Adverse health aspects of the mineral
were noted nearly 2000 years ago when Pliny the Younger wrote about the poor
health of slaves in the asbestos mines. Although known to be injurious for
centuries, the first modern references to its toxicity were by the British
Labor Inspectorate when it banned asbestos dust from the workplace in 1898.
Asbestosis cases were described in the literature after the turn of the
century. Cancer was first suspected in the mid 1930's and a causal link to
mesothelioma was made in 1965. Because of the public concern for worker and
public safety with the use of this material, several different types of
analysis were applied to the determination of asbestos content. Light
microscopy requires a great deal of experience and craft. Attempts were made
to apply less subjective methods to the analysis. X-ray diffraction was
partially successful in determining the mineral types but was unable to
separate out the fibrous portions from the non-fibrous portions. Also, the
minimum detection limit for asbestos analysis by X-ray diffraction (XRD) is
about 1%. Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA) was no more successful. These
provide useful corroborating information when the presence of asbestos has
been shown by microscopy; however, neither can determine the difference
between fibrous and non-fibrous minerals when both habits are present. The
same is true of Infrared Absorption (IR).

When electron microscopy was applied to asbestos analysis, hundreds of
fibers were discovered present too small to be visible in any light
microscope. There are two different types of electron microscope used for
asbestos analysis: Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and Transmission
Electron Microscope (TEM). Scanning Electron Microscopy is useful in
identifying minerals. The SEM can provide two of the three pieces of
information required to identify fibers by electron microscopy: morphology
and chemistry. The third is structure as determined by Selected Area Electron
Diffraction -- SAED which is performed in the TEM. Although the resolution of
the SEM is sufficient for very fine fibers to be seen, accuracy of chemical
analysis that can be performed on the fibers varies with fiber diameter in
fibers of less than 0.2 um diameter. The TEM is a powerful tool to identify
fibers too small to be resolved by light microscopy and should be used in
conjunction with this method when necessary. The TEM can provide all three
pieces of information required for fiber identification. Most fibers thicker
than 1 um can adequately be defined in the light microscope. The light
microscope remains as the best instrument for the determination of mineral
type. This is because the minerals under investigation were first described
analytically with the light microscope. It is inexpensive and gives positive
identification for most samples analyzed. Further, when optical techniques
are inadequate, there is ample indication that alternative techniques should
be used for complete identification of the sample.

1.2. Principle

Minerals consist of atoms that may be arranged in random order or in a
regular arrangement. Amorphous materials have atoms in random order while
crystalline materials have long range order. Many materials are transparent
to light, at least for small particles or for thin sections. The properties
of these materials can be investigated by the effect that the material has on
light passing through it. The six asbestos minerals are all crystalline with
particular properties that have been identified and cataloged. These six
minerals are anisotropic. They have a regular array of atoms, but the
arrangement is not the same in all directions. Each major direction of the
crystal presents a different regularity. Light photons travelling in each of
these main directions will encounter different electrical neighborhoods,
affecting the path and time of travel. The techniques outlined in this method
use the fact that light traveling through fibers or crystals in different
directions will behave differently, but predictably. The behavior of the
light as it travels through a crystal can be measured and compared with known
or determined values to identify the mineral species. Usually, Polarized
Light Microscopy (PLM) is performed with strain-free objectives on a
bright-field microscope platform. This would limit the resolution of the
microscope to about 0.4 um. Because OSHA requires the counting and
identification of fibers visible in phase contrast, the phase contrast
platform is used to visualize the fibers with the polarizing elements added
into the light path. Polarized light methods cannot identify fibers finer
than about 1 um in diameter even though they are visible. The finest fibers
are usually identified by inference from the presence of larger, identifiable
fiber bundles. When fibers are present, but not identifiable by light
microscopy, use either SEM or TEM to determine the fiber identity.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages of light microcopy are:

(a) Basic identification of the materials was first performed by light
microscopy and gross analysis. This provides a large base of published
information against which to check analysis and analytical technique.

(b) The analysis is specific to fibers. The minerals present can exist in
asbestiform, fibrous, prismatic, or massive varieties all at the same time.
Therefore, bulk methods of analysis such as X-ray diffraction, IR analysis,
DTA, etc. are inappropriate where the material is not known to be fibrous.

(c) The analysis is quick, requires little preparation time, and can be
performed on-site if a suitably equipped microscope is available.

The disadvantages are:

(a) Even using phase-polar illumination, not all the fibers present may be
seen. This is a problem for very low asbestos concentrations where
agglomerations or large bundles of fibers may not be present to allow
identification by inference.

(b) The method requires a great degree of sophistication on the part of the
microscopist. An analyst is only as useful as his mental catalog of images.
Therefore, a microscopist's accuracy is enhanced by experience. The
mineralogical training of the analyst is very important. It is the basis on
which subjective decisions are made.

(c) The method uses only a tiny amount of material for analysis. This may
lead to sampling bias and false results (high or low). This is especially
true if the sample is severely inhomogeneous.

(d) Fibers may be bound in a matrix and not distinguishable as fibers so
identification cannot be made.

1.4. Method Performance

1.4.1. This method can be used for determination of asbestos content from 0
to 100% asbestos. The detection limit has not been adequately determined,
although for selected samples, the limit is very low, depending on the number
of particles examined. For mostly homogeneous, finely divided samples, with
no difficult fibrous interferences, the detection limit is below 1%. For
inhomogeneous samples (most samples), the detection limit remains undefined.
NIST has conducted proficiency testing of laboratories on a national scale.
Although each round is reported statistically with an average, control
limits, etc., the results indicate a difficulty in establishing precision
especially in the low concentration range. It is suspected that there is
significant bias in the low range especially near 1%. EPA tried to remedy
this by requiring a mandatory point counting scheme for samples less than
10%. The point counting procedure is tedious, and may introduce significant
biases of its own. It has not been incorporated into this method.

1.4.2. The precision and accuracy of the quantitation tests performed in
this method are unknown. Concentrations are easier to determine in commercial
products where asbestos was deliberately added because the amount is usually
more than a few percent. An analyst's results can be "calibrated" against the
known amounts added by the manufacturer. For geological samples, the degree
of homogeneity affects the precision.

1.4.3. The performance of the method is analyst dependent. The analyst must
choose carefully and not necessarily randomly the portions for analysis to
assure that detection of asbestos occurs when it is present. For this reason,
the analyst must have adequate training in sample preparation, and experience
in the location and identification of asbestos in samples. This is usually
accomplished through substantial on-the-job training as well as formal
education in mineralogy and microscopy.

1.5. Interferences

Any material which is long, thin, and small enough to be viewed under the
microscope can be considered an interference for asbestos. There are
literally hundreds of interferences in workplaces. The techniques described
in this method are normally sufficient to eliminate the interferences. An
analyst's success in eliminating the interferences depends on proper
training.

Asbestos minerals belong to two mineral families: the serpentines and the
amphiboles. In the serpentine family, the only common fibrous mineral is
chrysotile. Occasionally, the mineral antigorite occurs in a fibril habit
with morphology similar to the amphiboles. The amphibole minerals consist of
a score of different minerals of which only five are regulated by federal
standard: amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestos
and actinolite asbestos. These are the only amphibole minerals that have been
commercially exploited for their fibrous properties; however, the rest can
and do occur occasionally in asbestiform habit.

Matrix embedding material can sometimes be a negative interference. The
analyst may not be able to easily extract the fibers from the matrix in order
to use the method. Where possible, remove the matrix before the analysis,
taking careful note of the loss of weight. Some common matrix materials are:
vinyl, rubber, tar, paint, plant fiber, cement, and epoxy. A further negative
interference is that the asbestos fibers themselves may be either too small
to be seen in Phase contrast Microscopy (PCM) or of a very low fibrous
quality, having the appearance of plant fibers. The analyst's ability to deal
with these materials increases with experience.

1.6. Uses and Occupational Exposure

Asbestos is ubiquitous in the environment. More than 40% of the land area of
the United States is composed of minerals which may contain asbestos.
Fortunately, the actual formation of great amounts of asbestos is relatively
rare. Nonetheless, there are locations in which environmental exposure can be
severe such as in the Serpentine Hills of California.

There are thousands of uses for asbestos in industry and the home. Asbestos
abatement workers are the most current segment of the population to have
occupational exposure to great amounts of asbestos. If the material is
undisturbed, there is no exposure. Exposure occurs when the
asbestos-containing material is abraded or otherwise disturbed during
maintenance operations or some other activity. Approximately 95% of the
asbestos in place in the United States is chrysotile.

Amosite and crocidolite make up nearly all the difference. Tremolite and
anthophyllite make up a very small percentage. Tremolite is found in
extremely small amounts in certain chrysotile deposits. Actinolite exposure
is probably greatest from environmental sources, but has been identified in
vermiculite containing, sprayed-on insulating materials which may have been
certified as asbestos-free.

1.7. Physical and Chemical Properties

The nominal chemical compositions for the asbestos minerals were given in
Section 1. Compared to cleavage fragments of the same minerals, asbestiform
fibers possess a high tensile strength along the fiber axis. They are
chemically inert, non- combustible, and heat resistant. Except for
chrysotile, they are insoluble in Hydrochloric acid (HCl). Chrysotile is
slightly soluble in HCl. Asbestos has high electrical resistance and good
sound absorbing characteristics. It can be woven into cables, fabrics or
other textiles, or matted into papers, felts, and mats.

1.8. Toxicology (This Section is for Information Only and Should Not Be
Taken as OSHA Policy)

Possible physiologic results of respiratory exposure to asbestos are
mesothelioma of the pleura or peritoneum, interstitial fibrosis, asbestosis,
pneumoconiosis, or respiratory cancer. The possible consequences of asbestos
exposure are detailed in the NIOSH Criteria Document or in the OSHA Asbestos
Standards 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 CFR 1926.1101.

2. Sampling Procedure

2.1. Equipment for Sampling

(a) Tube or cork borer sampling device

(b) Knife

(c) 20 mL
scintillation vial or similar vial

(d) Sealing encapsulant

2.2. Safety Precautions

Asbestos is a known carcinogen. Take care when sampling. While in an
asbestos-containing atmosphere, a properly selected and fit- tested
respirator should be worn. Take samples in a manner to cause the least amount
of dust. Follow these general guidelines:

(a) Do not make unnecessary dust.

(b) Take only a small amount (1 to
2 g).

(c) Tightly close the sample container.

(d) Use encapsulant to seal the
spot where the sample was taken, if necessary.

2.3. Sampling Procedure

Samples of any suspect material should be taken from an inconspicuous place.
Where the material is to remain, seal the sampling wound with an encapsulant
to eliminate the potential for exposure from the sample site. Microscopy
requires only a few milligrams of material. The amount that will fill a 20 mL
scintillation vial is more than adequate. Be sure to collect samples from all
layers and phases of material. If possible, make separate samples of each
different phase of the material. This will aid in determining the actual
hazard. DO NOT USE ENVELOPES, PLASTIC OR PAPER BAGS OF ANY KIND TO COLLECT
SAMPLES. The use of plastic bags presents a contamination hazard to
laboratory personnel and to other samples. When these containers are opened,
a bellows effect blows fibers out of the container onto everything, including
the person opening the container.

If a cork-borer type sampler is available, push the tube through the
material all the way, so that all layers of material are sampled. Some
samplers are intended to be disposable. These should be capped and sent to
the laboratory. If a non-disposable cork borer is used, empty the contents
into a scintillation vial and send to the laboratory. Vigorously and
completely clean the cork borer between samples.

2.4 Shipment

Samples packed in glass vials must not touch or they might break in shipment.

(a) Seal the samples with a sample seal (such as the OSHA 21) over the end
to guard against tampering and to identify the sample.

(b) Package the bulk samples in separate packages from the air samples. They
may cross-contaminate each other and will invalidate the results of the air
samples.

(c) Include identifying paperwork with the samples, but not in contact with
the suspected asbestos.

(d) To maintain sample accountability, ship the samples by certified mail,
overnight express, or hand carry them to the laboratory.

3. Analysis

The analysis of asbestos samples can be divided into two major parts:

sample preparation and microscopy. Because of the different asbestos uses
that may be encountered by the analyst, each sample may need different
preparation steps. The choices are outlined below. There are several
different tests that are performed to identify the asbestos species and
determine the percentage. They will be explained below.

3.1. Safety

(a) Do not create unnecessary dust. Handle the samples in HEPA- filter
equipped hoods. If samples are received in bags, envelopes or other
inappropriate container, open them only in a hood having a face velocity at
or greater than 100 fpm. Transfer a small amount to a scintillation vial and
only handle the smaller amount.

(b) Open samples in a hood, never in the open lab area.

(c) Index of
refraction oils can be toxic. Take care not to get this material on the skin.
Wash immediately with soap and water if this happens.

(d) Samples that have been heated in the muffle furnace or the drying oven
may be hot. Handle them with tongs until they are cool enough to handle.

(e) Some of the solvents used, such as THF (tetrahydrofuran), are toxic and
should only be handled in an appropriate fume hood and according to
instructions given in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).

Sample preparation begins with pre-preparation which may include chemical
reduction of the matrix, heating the sample to dryness or heating in the
muffle furnace. The end result is a sample which has been reduced to a powder
that is sufficiently fine to fit under the cover slip. Analyze different
phases of samples separately, e.g., tile and the tile mastic should be
analyzed separately as the mastic may contain asbestos while the tile may
not.

(a) Wet samples

Samples with a high water content will not give the proper dispersion colors
and must be dried prior to sample mounting. Remove the lid of the
scintillation vial, place the bottle in the drying oven and heat at 100 deg.C
to dryness (usually about 2 h). Samples which are not submitted to the lab in
glass must be removed and placed in glass vials or aluminum weighing pans
before placing them in the drying oven.

(b) Samples With Organic Interference -- Muffle Furnace

These may include samples with tar as a matrix, vinyl asbestos tile, or any
other organic that can be reduced by heating. Remove the sample from the vial
and weigh in a balance to determine the weight of the submitted portion.
Place the sample in a muffle furnace at 500 deg.C for 1 to 2 h or until all
obvious organic material has been removed. Retrieve, cool and weigh again to
determine the weight loss on ignition. This is necessary to determine the
asbestos content of the submitted sample, because the analyst will be looking
at a reduced sample.

Note: Heating above 600 deg.C will cause the sample to undergo a
structural change which, given sufficient time, will convert the chrysotile
to forsterite. Heating even at lower temperatures for 1 to 2 h may have a
measurable effect on the optical properties of the minerals. If the analyst
is unsure of what to expect, a sample of standard asbestos should be heated
to the same temperature for the same length of time so that it can be
examined for the proper interpretation.

(c) Samples With Organic Interference -- THF

Vinyl asbestos tile is the most common material treated with this solvent,
although, substances containing tar will sometimes yield to this treatment.
Select a portion of the material and then grind it up if possible. Weigh the
sample and place it in a test tube. Add sufficient THF to dissolve the
organic matrix. This is usually about 4 to 5 mL. Remember, THF is highly
flammable. Filter the remaining material through a tared silver membrane, dry
and weigh to determine how much is left after the solvent extraction. Further
process the sample to remove carbonate or mount directly.

(d) Samples With Carbonate Interference

Carbonate material is often found on fibers and sometimes must be removed in
order to perform dispersion microscopy. Weigh out a portion of the material
and place it in a test tube. Add a sufficient amount of 0.1 M HCl or
decalcifying solution in the tube to react all the carbonate as evidenced by
gas formation; i.e., when the gas bubbles stop, add a little more solution.
If no more gas forms, the reaction is complete. Filter the material out
through a tared silver membrane, dry and weigh to determine the weight lost.

3.4. Sample Preparation

Samples must be prepared so that accurate determination can be made of the
asbestos type and amount present. The following steps are carried out in the
low-flow hood (a low-flow hood has less than 50 fpm flow):

(1) If the sample has large lumps, is hard, or cannot be made to lie under a
cover slip, the grain size must be reduced. Place a small amount between two
slides and grind the material between them or grind a small amount in a clean
mortar and pestle. The choice of whether to use an alumina, ruby, or diamond
mortar depends on the hardness of the material. Impact damage can alter the
asbestos mineral if too much mechanical shock occurs. (Freezer mills can
completely destroy the observable crystallinity of asbestos and should not be
used). For some samples, a portion of material can be shaved off with a
scalpel, ground off with a hand grinder or hack saw blade.

The preparation tools should either be disposable or cleaned thoroughly. Use
vigorous scrubbing to loosen the fibers during the washing. Rinse the
implements with copious amounts of water and air- dry in a dust-free
environment.

(2) If the sample is powder or has been reduced as in (1) above, it is ready
to mount. Place a glass slide on a piece of optical tissue and write the
identification on the painted or frosted end. Place two drops of index of
refraction medium n=1.550 on the slide. (The medium n=1.550 is chosen because
it is the matching index for chrysotile. Dip the end of a clean paper-clip or
dissecting needle into the droplet of refraction medium on the slide to
moisten it. Then dip the probe into the powder sample. Transfer what sticks
on the probe to the slide. The material on the end of the probe should have a
diameter of about 3 mm for a good mount. If the material is very fine, less
sample may be appropriate. For non-powder samples such as fiber mats, forceps
should be used to transfer a small amount of material to the slide. Stir the
material in the medium on the slide, spreading it out and making the
preparation as uniform as possible. Place a cover-slip on the preparation by
gently lowering onto the slide and allowing it to fall "trapdoor" fashion on
the preparation to push out any bubbles. Press gently on the cover slip to
even out the distribution of particulate on the slide. If there is
insufficient mounting oil on the slide, one or two drops may be placed near
the edge of the coverslip on the slide. Capillary action will draw the
necessary amount of liquid into the preparation. Remove excess oil with the
point of a laboratory wiper.

Treat at least two different areas of each phase in this fashion. Choose
representative areas of the sample. It may be useful to select particular
areas or fibers for analysis. This is useful to identify asbestos in severely
inhomogeneous samples.

When it is determined that amphiboles may be present, repeat the above
process using the appropriate high-dispersion oils until an identification is
made or all six asbestos minerals have been ruled out. Note that percent
determination must be done in the index medium 1.550 because amphiboles tend
to disappear in their matching mediums.

3.5. Analytical Procedure

Note: This method presumes some knowledge of mineralogy and optical
petrography.

The analysis consists of three parts: The determination of whether there is
asbestos present, what type is present and the determination of how much is
present. The general flow of the analysis is:

(1) Gross examination.

(2) Examination under polarized light on the
stereo microscope.

(3) Examination by phase-polar illumination on the
compound phase microscope.

(4) Determination of species by dispersion stain. Examination by Becke line
analysis may also be used; however, this is usually more cumbersome for
asbestos determination.

(5) Difficult samples may need to be analyzed by SEM or TEM, or the results
from those techniques combined with light microscopy for a definitive
identification. Identification of a particle as asbestos requires that it be
asbestiform. Description of particles should follow the suggestion of
Campbell. (Figure 1)

For the purpose of regulation, the mineral must be one of the six minerals
covered and must be in the asbestos growth habit. Large specimen samples of
asbestos generally have the gross appearance of wood. Fibers are easily
parted from it. Asbestos fibers are very long compared with their widths. The
fibers have a very high tensile strength as demonstrated by bending without
breaking. Asbestos fibers exist in bundles that are easily parted, show
longitudinal fine structure and may be tufted at the ends showing "bundle of
sticks" morphology. In the microscope some of these properties may not be
observable. Amphiboles do not always show striations along their length even
when they are asbestos. Neither will they always show tufting. They generally
do not show a curved nature except for very long fibers. Asbestos and
asbestiform minerals are usually characterized in groups by extremely high
aspect ratios (greater than 100:1). While aspect ratio analysis is useful for
characterizing populations of fibers, it cannot be used to identify
individual fibers of intermediate to short aspect ratio. Observation of many
fibers is often necessary to determine whether a sample consists of "cleavage
fragments" or of asbestos fibers.

Most cleavage fragments of the asbestos minerals are easily distinguishable
from true asbestos fibers. This is because true cleavage fragments usually
have larger diameters than 1 um. Internal structure of particles larger than
this usually shows them to have no internal fibrillar structure. In addition,
cleavage fragments of the monoclinic amphiboles show inclined extinction
under crossed polars with no compensator. Asbestos fibers usually show
extinction at zero degrees or ambiguous extinction if any at all.
Morphologically, the larger cleavage fragments are obvious by their blunt or
stepped ends showing prismatic habit. Also, they tend to be acicular rather
than filiform.

Where the particles are less than 1 um in diameter and have an aspect ratio
greater than or equal to 3:1, it is recommended that the sample be analyzed
by SEM or TEM if there is any question whether the fibers are cleavage
fragments or asbestiform particles.

Care must be taken when analyzing by electron microscopy because the
interferences are different from those in light microscopy and may
structurally be very similar to asbestos. The classic interference is between
anthophyllite and biopyribole or intermediate fiber. Use the same
morphological clues for electron microscopy as are used for light microscopy,
e.g. fibril splitting, internal longitudinal striation, fraying, curvature,
etc.

(1) Gross examination:

Examine the sample, preferably in the glass vial. Determine the presence of
any obvious fibrous component. Estimate a percentage based on previous
experience and current observation. Determine whether any pre-preparation is
necessary. Determine the number of phases present. This step may be carried
out or augmented by observation at 6 to 40 x under a stereo microscope.

(2) After performing any necessary pre-preparation, prepare slides of each
phase as described above. Two preparations of the same phase in the same
index medium can be made side-by-side on the same glass for convenience.
Examine with the polarizing stereo microscope. Estimate the percentage of
asbestos based on the amount of birefringent fiber present.

(3) Examine the slides on the phase-polar microscopes at magnifications of
160 and 400 x . Note the morphology of the fibers. Long, thin, very straight
fibers with little curvature are indicative of fibers from the amphibole
family. Curved, wavy fibers are usually indicative of chrysotile. Estimate
the percentage of asbestos on the phase-polar microscope under conditions of
crossed polars and a gypsum plate. Fibers smaller than 1.0 um in thickness
must be identified by inference to the presence of larger, identifiable
fibers and morphology. If no larger fibers are visible, electron microscopy
should be performed. At this point, only a tentative identification can be
made. Full identification must be made with dispersion microscopy. Details of
the tests are included in the appendices.

(4) Once fibers have been determined to be present, they must be identified.
Adjust the microscope for dispersion mode and observe the fibers. The
microscope has a rotating stage, one polarizing element, and a system for
generating dark-field dispersion microscopy (see Section 4.6. of this
appendix). Align a fiber with its length parallel to the polarizer and note
the color of the Becke lines. Rotate the stage to bring the fiber length
perpendicular to the polarizer and note the color. Repeat this process for
every fiber or fiber bundle examined. The colors must be consistent with the
colors generated by standard asbestos reference materials for a positive
identification. In n=1.550, amphiboles will generally show a yellow to
straw-yellow color indicating that the fiber indices of refraction are higher
than the liquid. If long, thin fibers are noted and the colors are yellow,
prepare further slides as above in the suggested matching liquids listed
below:

Type of asbestos

Index of refraction

Chrysotile

n=1.550

Amosite

n=1.670 r 1.680

Crocidolite

n=1.690

Anthophyllite

n=1.605 nd 1.620

Tremolite

n=1.605 and 1.620

Actinolite

n=1.620

Where more than one liquid is suggested, the first is preferred;

however, in some cases this liquid will not give good dispersion color. Take
care to avoid interferences in the other liquid; e.g., wollastonite in
n=1.620 will give the same colors as tremolite. In n=1.605 wollastonite will
appear yellow in all directions. Wollastonite may be determined under crossed
polars as it will change from blue to yellow as it is rotated along its fiber
axis by tapping on the cover slip. Asbestos minerals will not change in this
way.

Determination of the angle of extinction may, when present, aid in the
determination of anthophyllite from tremolite. True asbestos fibers usually
have 0 deg. extinction or ambiguous extinction, while cleavage fragments have
more definite extinction.

Continue analysis until both preparations have been examined and all present
species of asbestos are identified. If there are no fibers present, or there
is less than 0.1% present, end the analysis with the minimum number of slides
(2).

(5) Some fibers have a coating on them which makes dispersion microscopy
very difficult or impossible. Becke line analysis or electron microscopy may
be performed in those cases. Determine the percentage by light microscopy.
TEM analysis tends to overestimate the actual percentage present.

(6) Percentage determination is an estimate of occluded area, tempered by
gross observation. Gross observation information is used to make sure that
the high magnification microscopy does not greatly over- or under- estimate
the amount of fiber present. This part of the analysis requires a great deal
of experience. Satisfactory models for asbestos content analysis have not yet
been developed, although some models based on metallurgical grain-size
determination have found some utility. Estimation is more easily handled in
situations where the grain sizes visible at about 160 x are about the same
and the sample is relatively homogeneous.

View all of the area under the cover slip to make the percentage
determination. View the fields while moving the stage, paying attention to
the clumps of material. These are not usually the best areas to perform
dispersion microscopy because of the interference from other materials. But,
they are the areas most likely to represent the accurate percentage in the
sample. Small amounts of asbestos require slower scanning and more frequent
analysis of individual fields.

Report the area occluded by asbestos as the concentration. This estimate
does not generally take into consideration the difference in density of the
different species present in the sample. For most samples this is adequate.
Simulation studies with similar materials must be carried out to apply
microvisual estimation for that purpose and is beyond the scope of this
procedure.

(7) Where successive concentrations have been made by chemical or physical
means, the amount reported is the percentage of the material in the "as
submitted" or original state. The percentage determined by microscopy is
multiplied by the fractions remaining after pre-preparation steps to give the
percentage in the original sample. For example:

Step 1. 60% remains after heating at 550 deg.C for 1 h.

Step 2. 30%
of the residue of step 1 remains after dissolution of carbonate in 0.1 m
HCl.

Step 3. Microvisual estimation determines that 5% of the sample is
chrysotile asbestos.

(8) Report the percent and type of asbestos present. For samples where
asbestos was identified, but is less than 1.0%, report "Asbestos present,
less than 1.0%." There must have been at least two observed fibers or fiber
bundles in the two preparations to be reported as present. For samples where
asbestos was not seen, report as "None Detected."

Auxiliary Information

Because of the subjective nature of asbestos analysis, certain concepts and
procedures need to be discussed in more depth. This information will help the
analyst understand why some of the procedures are carried out the way they
are.

4.1. Light

Light is electromagnetic energy. It travels from its source in packets
called quanta. It is instructive to consider light as a plane wave. The light
has a direction of travel. Perpendicular to this and mutually perpendicular
to each other, are two vector components. One is the magnetic vector and the
other is the electric vector. We shall only be concerned with the electric
vector. In this description, the interaction of the vector and the mineral
will describe all the observable phenomena. From a light source such a
microscope illuminator, light travels in all different direction from the
filament.

In any given direction away from the filament, the electric vector is
perpendicular to the direction of travel of a light ray. While perpendicular,
its orientation is random about the travel axis. If the electric vectors from
all the light rays were lined up by passing the light through a filter that
would only let light rays with electric vectors oriented in one direction
pass, the light would then be POLARIZED.

Polarized light interacts with matter in the direction of the electric
vector. This is the polarization direction. Using this property it is
possible to use polarized light to probe different materials and identify
them by how they interact with light.

The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant at about 2.99 x 10(8) m/s. When
light travels in different materials such as air, water, minerals or oil, it
does not travel at this speed. It travels slower. This slowing is a function
of both the material through which the light is traveling and the wavelength
or frequency of the light. In general, the more dense the material, the
slower the light travels. Also, generally, the higher the frequency, the
slower the light will travel. The ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum to
that in a material is called the index of refraction (n). It is usually
measured at 589 nm (the sodium D line). If white light (light containing all
the visible wavelengths) travels through a material, rays of longer
wavelengths will travel faster than those of shorter wavelengths, this
separation is called dispersion. Dispersion is used as an identifier of
materials as described in Section 4.6.

4.2. Material Properties

Materials are either amorphous or crystalline. The difference between these
two descriptions depends on the positions of the atoms in them. The atoms in
amorphous materials are randomly arranged with no long range order. An
example of an amorphous material is glass. The atoms in crystalline
materials, on the other hand, are in regular arrays and have long range
order. Most of the atoms can be found in highly predictable locations.
Examples of crystalline material are salt, gold, and the asbestos minerals.

It is beyond the scope of this method to describe the different types of
crystalline materials that can be found, or the full description of the
classes into which they can fall. However, some general crystallography is
provided below to give a foundation to the procedures described.

With the exception of anthophyllite, all the asbestos minerals belong to the
monoclinic crystal type. The unit cell is the basic repeating unit of the
crystal and for monoclinic crystals can be described as having three unequal
sides, two 90 deg. angles and one angle not equal to 90 deg.. The
orthorhombic group, of which anthophyllite is a member has three unequal
sides and three 90 deg. angles. The unequal sides are a consequence of the
complexity of fitting the different atoms into the unit cell. Although the
atoms are in a regular array, that array is not symmetrical in all
directions. There is long range order in the three major directions of the
crystal. However, the order is different in each of the three directions.
This has the effect that the index of refraction is different in each of the
three directions. Using polarized light, we can investigate the index of
refraction in each of the directions and identify the mineral or material
under investigation. The indices alpha, beta, and gamma are used to identify
the lowest, middle, and highest index of refraction respectively. The x
direction, associated with alpha is called the fast axis. Conversely, the z
direction is associated with gamma and is the slow direction. Crocidolite has
alpha along the fiber length making it "length-fast". The remainder of the
asbestos minerals have the gamma axis along the fiber length. They are called
"length-slow". This orientation to fiber length is used to aid in the
identification of asbestos.

4.3. Polarized Light Technique

Polarized light microscopy as described in this section uses the phase-polar
microscope described in Section 3.2. A phase contrast microscope is fitted
with two polarizing elements, one below and one above the sample. The
polarizers have their polarization directions at right angles to each other.
Depending on the tests performed, there may be a compensator between these
two polarizing elements. A compensator is a piece of mineral with known
properties that "compensates" for some deficiency in the optical train. Light
emerging from a polarizing element has its electric vector pointing in the
polarization direction of the element. The light will not be subsequently
transmitted through a second element set at a right angle to the first
element. Unless the light is altered as it passes from one element to the
other, there is no transmission of light.

4.4. Angle of Extinction

Crystals which have different crystal regularity in two or three main
directions are said to be anisotropic. They have a different index of
refraction in each of the main directions. When such a crystal is inserted
between the crossed polars, the field of view is no longer dark but shows the
crystal in color. The color depends on the properties of the crystal. The
light acts as if it travels through the crystal along the optical axes. If a
crystal optical axis were lined up along one of the polarizing directions
(either the polarizer or the analyzer) the light would appear to travel only
in that direction, and it would blink out or go dark. The difference in
degrees between the fiber direction and the angle at which it blinks out is
called the angle of extinction. When this angle can be measured, it is useful
in identifying the mineral. The procedure for measuring the angle of
extinction is to first identify the polarization direction in the microscope.
A commercial alignment slide can be used to establish the polarization
directions or use anthophyllite or another suitable mineral. This mineral has
a zero degree angle of extinction and will go dark to extinction as it aligns
with the polarization directions. When a fiber of anthophyllite has gone to
extinction, align the eyepiece reticle or graticule with the fiber so that
there is a visual cue as to the direction of polarization in the field of
view. Tape or otherwise secure the eyepiece in this position so it will not
shift.

After the polarization direction has been identified in the field of view,
move the particle of interest to the center of the field of view and align it
with the polarization direction. For fibers, align the fiber along this
direction. Note the angular reading of the rotating stage. Looking at the
particle, rotate the stage until the fiber goes dark or "blinks out". Again
note the reading of the stage. The difference in the first reading and the
second is an angle of extinction.

The angle measured may vary as the orientation of the fiber changes about
its long axis. Tables of mineralogical data usually report the maximum angle
of extinction. Asbestos forming minerals, when they exhibit an angle of
extinction, usually do show an angle of extinction close to the reported
maximum, or as appropriate depending on the substitution chemistry.

4.5. Crossed Polars with Compensator

When the optical axes of a crystal are not lined up along one of the
polarizing directions (either the polarizer or the analyzer) part of the
light travels along one axis and part travels along the other visible axis.
This is characteristic of birefringent materials.

The color depends on the difference of the two visible indices of refraction
and the thickness of the crystal. The maximum difference available is the
difference between the alpha and the gamma axes. This maximum difference is
usually tabulated as the birefringence of the crystal.

For this test, align the fiber at 45 deg. to the polarization directions in
order to maximize the contribution to each of the optical axes. The colors
seen are called retardation colors. They arise from the recombination of
light which has traveled through the two separate directions of the crystal.
One of the rays is retarded behind the other since the light in that
direction travels slower. On recombination, some of the colors which make up
white light are enhanced by constructive interference and some are suppressed
by destructive interference. The result is a color dependent on the
difference between the indices and the thickness of the crystal. The proper
colors, thicknesses, and retardations are shown on a Michel- Levy chart. The
three items, retardation, thickness and birefringence are related by the
following relationship:

Examination of the equation for asbestos minerals reveals that the visible
colors for almost all common asbestos minerals and fiber sizes are shades of
gray and black. The eye is relatively poor at discriminating different shades
of gray. It is very good at discriminating different colors. In order to
compensate for the low retardation, a compensator is added to the light train
between the polarization elements. The compensator used for this test is a
gypsum plate of known thickness and birefringence. Such a compensator when
oriented at 45 deg. to the polarizer direction, provides a retardation of 530
nm of the 530 nm wavelength color. This enhances the red color and gives the
background a characteristic red to red-magenta color. If this "full-wave"
compensator is in place when the asbestos preparation is inserted into the
light train, the colors seen on the fibers are quite different. Gypsum, like
asbestos has a fast axis and a slow axis. When a fiber is aligned with its
fast axis in the same direction as the fast axis of the gypsum plate, the ray
vibrating in the slow direction is retarded by both the asbestos and the
gypsum. This results in a higher retardation than would be present for either
of the two minerals. The color seen is a second order blue. When the fiber is
rotated 90 deg. using the rotating stage, the slow direction of the fiber is
now aligned with the fast direction of the gypsum and the fast direction of
the fiber is aligned with the slow direction of the gypsum. Thus, one ray
vibrates faster in the fast direction of the gypsum, and slower in the slow
direction of the fiber; the other ray will vibrate slower in the slow
direction of the gypsum and faster in the fast direction of the fiber. In
this case, the effect is subtractive and the color seen is a first order
yellow. As long as the fiber thickness does not add appreciably to the color,
the same basic colors will be seen for all asbestos types except crocidolite.
In crocidolite the colors will be weaker, may be in the opposite directions,
and will be altered by the blue absorption color natural to crocidolite.
Hundreds of other materials will give the same colors as asbestos, and
therefore, this test is not definitive for asbestos. The test is useful in
discriminating against fiberglass or other amorphous fibers such as some
synthetic fibers. Certain synthetic fibers will show retardation colors
different than asbestos; however, there are some forms of polyethylene and
aramid which will show morphology and retardation colors similar to asbestos
minerals. This test must be supplemented with a positive identification test
when birefringent fibers are present which can not be excluded by morphology.
This test is relatively ineffective for use on fibers less than 1 um in
diameter. For positive confirmation TEM or SEM should be used if no larger
bundles or fibers are visible.

4.6. Dispersion Staining

Dispersion microscopy or dispersion staining is the method of choice for the
identification of asbestos in bulk materials. Becke line analysis is used by
some laboratories and yields the same results as does dispersion staining for
asbestos and can be used in lieu of dispersion staining. Dispersion staining
is performed on the same platform as the phase-polar analysis with the
analyzer and compensator removed. One polarizing element remains to define
the direction of the light so that the different indices of refraction of the
fibers may be separately determined. Dispersion microscopy is a dark-field
technique when used for asbestos. Particles are imaged with scattered light.
Light which is unscattered is blocked from reaching the eye either by the
back field image mask in a McCrone objective or a back field image mask in
the phase condenser. The most convenient method is to use the rotating phase
condenser to move an oversized phase ring into place. The ideal size for this
ring is for the central disk to be just larger than the objective entry
aperture as viewed in the back focal plane. The larger the disk, the less
scattered light reaches the eye. This will have the effect of diminishing the
intensity of dispersion color and will shift the actual color seen. The
colors seen vary even on microscopes from the same manufacturer. This is due
to the different bands of wavelength exclusion by different mask sizes. The
mask may either reside in the condenser or in the objective back focal plane.
It is imperative that the analyst determine by experimentation with asbestos
standards what the appropriate colors should be for each asbestos type. The
colors depend also on the temperature of the preparation and the exact
chemistry of the asbestos. Therefore, some slight differences from the
standards should be allowed. This is not a serious problem for commercial
asbestos uses. This technique is used for identification of the indices of
refraction for fibers by recognition of color. There is no direct numerical
readout of the index of refraction. Correlation of color to actual index of
refraction is possible by referral to published conversion tables. This is
not necessary for the analysis of asbestos. Recognition of appropriate colors
along with the proper morphology are deemed sufficient to identify the
commercial asbestos minerals. Other techniques including SEM, TEM, and XRD
may be required to provide additional information in order to identify other
types of asbestos.

Make a preparation in the suspected matching high dispersion oil, e.g.,
n=1.550 for chrysotile. Perform the preliminary tests to determine whether
the fibers are birefringent or not. Take note of the morphological character.
Wavy fibers are indicative of chrysotile while long, straight, thin, frayed
fibers are indicative of amphibole asbestos. This can aid in the selection of
the appropriate matching oil. The microscope is set up and the polarization
direction is noted as in Section 4.4. Align a fiber with the polarization
direction. Note the color. This is the color parallel to the polarizer. Then
rotate the fiber rotating the stage 90 deg. so that the polarization
direction is across the fiber. This is the perpendicular position. Again note
the color. Both colors must be consistent with standard asbestos minerals in
the correct direction for a positive identification of asbestos. If only one
of the colors is correct while the other is not, the identification is not
positive. If the colors in both directions are bluish-white, the analyst has
chosen a matching index oil which is higher than the correct matching oil,
e.g. the analyst has used n=1.620 where chrysotile is present. The next lower
oil (Section 3.5.) should be used to prepare another specimen. If the color
in both directions is yellow-white to straw-yellow-white, this indicates that
the index of the oil is lower than the index of the fiber, e.g. the
preparation is in n=1.550 while anthophyllite is present. Select the next
higher oil (Section 3.5.) and prepare another slide. Continue in this fashion
until a positive identification of all asbestos species present has been made
or all possible asbestos species have been ruled out by negative results in
this test. Certain plant fibers can have similar dispersion colors as
asbestos. Take care to note and evaluate the morphology of the fibers or
remove the plant fibers in pre-preparation. Coating material on the fibers
such as carbonate or vinyl may destroy the dispersion color. Usually, there
will be some outcropping of fiber which will show the colors sufficient for
identification. When this is not the case, treat the sample as described in
Section 3.3. and then perform dispersion staining. Some samples will yield to
Becke line analysis if they are coated or electron microscopy can be used for
identification.

(6) Transportation, disposal, storage, containment of and housekeeping
activities involving asbestos or products containing asbestos, on the site or
location at which construction activities are performed.

(7) Coverage under this standard shall be based on the nature of the work
operation involving asbestos exposure.

"Amended water" means water to which surfactant (wetting agent) has been
added to increase the ability of the liquid to penetrate ACM.

"Asbestos" includes chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite asbestos,
anthophyllite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, and any of these minerals that
has been chemically treated and/or altered. For purposes of this standard,
"asbestos" includes PACM, as defined below.

"Asbestos-containing material, (ACM)" means any material containing more
than one percent asbestos.

"Assistant Secretary" means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, or designee.

"Authorized person" means any person authorized by the employer and required
by work duties to be present in regulated areas.

"Building/facility owner" is the legal entity, including a lessee, which
exercises control over management and record keeping functions relating to a
building and/or facility in which activities covered by this standard take
place.

"Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH)" means one certified in the
comprehensive practice of industrial hygiene by the American Board of
Industrial Hygiene.

"Class I asbestos work" means activities involving the removal of thermal
system insulation or surfacing ACM/PACM.

"Class II asbestos work" means activities involving the removal of ACM which
is neither TSI or surfacing ACM. This includes, but is not limited to, the
removal of asbestos-containing wallboard, floor tile and sheeting, roofing
and siding shingles, and construction mastics.

"Class III asbestos work means" repair and maintenance operations, where
"ACM", including TSI and surfacing ACM and PACM, may be disturbed.

"Class IV asbestos work" means maintenance and custodial activities during
which employees contact ACM and PACM and activities to clean up waste and
debris containing ACM and PACM.

"Clean room" means an uncontaminated room having facilities for the storage
of employees' street clothing and uncontaminated materials and equipment.

"Closely resemble" means that the major workplace conditions which have
contributed to the levels of historic asbestos exposure, are no more
protective than conditions of the current workplace.

"Competent person" see "Qualified person"

"Critical barrier" means one or more layers of plastic sealed over all
openings into a work area or any other physical barrier sufficient to prevent
airborne asbestos in a work area from migrating to an adjacent area.

"Decontamination area" means an enclosed area adjacent and connected to the
regulated area and consisting of an equipment room, shower area, and clean
room, which is used for the decontamination of workers, materials, and
equipment that are contaminated with asbestos.

"Demolition" means the wrecking or taking out of any load-supporting
structural member and any related razing, removing, or stripping of asbestos
products.

"Director" means the Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or designee.

"Disturbance" means contact which releases fibers from ACM or PACM or debris
containing ACM or PACM. This term includes activities that disrupt the matrix
of ACM or PACM, render ACM or PACM friable, or generate visible debris.
Disturbance includes cutting away small amounts of ACM and PACM, no greater
than the amount which can be contained in one standard sized glove bag or
waste bag, in order to access a building or vessel component. In no event
shall the amount of ACM or PACM so disturbed exceed that which can be
contained in one glove bag or waste bag which shall not exceed 60 inches in
length and width.

"Employee exposure" means that exposure to airborne asbestos that would
occur if the employee were not using respiratory protective equipment.

"Equipment room (change room)" means a contaminated room located within the
decontamination area that is supplied with impermeable bags or containers for
the disposal of contaminated protective clothing and equipment.

"Fiber" means a particulate form of asbestos, 5 micrometers or longer, with
a length-to-diameter ratio of at least 3 to 1.

"Glovebag" means an impervious plastic bag-like enclosure affixed around an
asbestos-containing material, with glove-like appendages through which
material and tools may be handled.

"High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter" means a filter capable of
trapping and retaining at least 99.97 percent of all mono-dispersed particles
of 0.3 micrometers in diameter.

"Homogeneous area" means an area of surfacing material or thermal system
insulation that is uniform in color and texture.

"Industrial hygienist" means a professional qualified by education,
training, and experience to anticipate, recognize, evaluate and develop
controls for occupational health hazards.

"Intact" means that the ACM has not crumbled, been pulverized, or otherwise
deteriorated so that it is no longer likely to be bound with its matrix.

"Modification for purposes of paragraph (g)(6)(2)," means a changed or
altered procedure, material or component of a control system, which replaces
a procedure, material or component of a required system. Omitting a procedure
or component, or reducing or diminishing the stringency or strength of a
material or component of the control system is not a "modification" for
purposes of paragraph (g)(6)(ii) of this section.

"Negative Initial Exposure Assessment" means a demonstration by the
employer, which complies with the criteria in paragraph (f)(iii) of this
section, that employee exposure during an operation is expected to be
consistently below the PELs.

"PACM" means "presumed asbestos containing material". "Presumed
Asbestos Containing Material" means thermal system insulation and surfacing
material found in buildings, vessels, and vessel sections constructed no
later than 1980. The designation of a material as "PACM" may be rebutted
pursuant to paragraph (k)(4) of this section.

"Project Designer" means a person who has successfully completed the
training requirements for an abatement project designer established by 40
U.S.C. Sec. 763.90(g).

"Qualified person" means, in addition to the definition in 29 CFR
1926.32(f), one who is capable of identifying existing asbestos hazards in
the workplace and selecting the appropriate control strategy for asbestos
exposure, who has the authority to take prompt corrective measures to
eliminate them, as specified in 29 CFR 1926.32(f); in addition, for Class I,
II, III, and IV work, who is specially trained in a training course which
meet the criteria of EPA's Model Accreditation Plan (40 CFR Part 763) for
project designer or supervisor, or its equivalent.

"Regulated area" means an area established by the employer to demarcate
areas where Class I, II, and III asbestos work is conducted, and any
adjoining area where debris and waste from such asbestos work accumulate; and
a work area within which airborne concentrations of asbestos, exceed or can
reasonably be expected to exceed the permissible exposure limit. Requirements
for regulated areas are set out in paragraph (e)(6) of this section.

"Removal" means all operations where ACM and/or PACM is taken out or
stripped from structures or substrates, and includes demolition operations.

"Repair" means overhauling, rebuilding, reconstructing, or reconditioning of
vessels, vessel sections, structures or substrates, including encapsulation
or other repair of ACM or PACM attached to structures or substrates.

"Surfacing material" means material that is sprayed, troweled-on or
otherwise applied to surfaces (such as acoustical plaster on ceilings and
fireproofing materials on structural members, or other materials on surfaces
for acoustical, fireproofing, and other purposes).

"Thermal system insulation ACM" is thermal system insulation which contains
more than 1% asbestos.

(c) Permissible exposure limits (PELS) -- (1) Time-weighted average limit
(TWA). The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborne
concentration of asbestos in excess of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air
as an eight (8) hour time-weighted average (TWA), as determined by the method
prescribed in Appendix A of this section, or by an equivalent method.

(2) Excursion limit. The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposed
to an airborne concentration of asbestos in excess of 1.0 fiber per cubic
centimeter of air (1 f/cc) as averaged over a sampling period of thirty (30)
minutes, as determined by the method prescribed in Appendix A of this
section, or by an equivalent method.

(d) Multi-employer worksites. (1) On multi-employer worksites, an employer
performing work requiring the establishment of a regulated area shall inform
other employers on the site of the nature of the employer's work with
asbestos and/or PACM, of the existence of and requirements pertaining to
regulated areas, and the measures taken to ensure that employees of such
other employers are not exposed to asbestos.

(2) Asbestos hazards at a multi-employer work site shall be abated by the
contractor who created or controls the source of asbestos contamination. For
example, if there is a significant breach of an enclosure containing Class I
work, the employer responsible for erecting the enclosure shall repair the
breach immediately.

(3) In addition, all employers of employees exposed to asbestos hazards
shall comply with applicable protective provisions to protect their
employees. For example, if employees working immediately adjacent to a Class
I asbestos job are exposed to asbestos due to the inadequate containment of
such job, their employer shall either remove the employees from the area
until the enclosure breach is repaired; or perform an initial exposure
assessment pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

(4) All employers of employees working adjacent to regulated areas
established by another employer on a multi-employer work- site, shall take
steps on a daily basis to ascertain the integrity of the enclosure and/or the
effectiveness of the control method relied on by the primary asbestos
contractor to assure that asbestos fibers do not migrate to such adjacent
areas.

(5) All general contractors on a shipyard project which includes work
covered by this standard shall be deemed to exercise general supervisory
authority over the work covered by this standard, even though the general
contractor is not qualified to serve as the asbestos "qualified person" as
defined by paragraph (b) of this section. As supervisor of the entire
project, the general contractor shall ascertain whether the asbestos
contractor is in compliance with this standard, and shall require such
contractor to come into compliance with this standard when necessary.

(e) Regulated areas (1) All Class I, II and III asbestos work shall be
conducted within regulated areas. All other operations covered by this
standard shall be conducted within a regulated area where airborne
concentrations of asbestos exceed, or there is a reasonable possibility they
may exceed a PEL. Regulated areas shall comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (e)(2), (3), (4) and (5) of this section.

(2) Demarcation. The regulated area shall be demarcated in any manner that
minimizes the number of persons within the area and protects persons outside
the area from exposure to airborne concentrations of asbestos. Where critical
barriers or negative pressure enclosures are used, they may demarcate the
regulated area. Signs shall be provided and displayed pursuant to the
requirements of paragraph (k)(6) of this section.

(3) Access. Access to regulated areas shall be limited to authorized persons
and to persons authorized by the Act or regulations issued pursuant thereto.

(4) Respirators. All persons entering a regulated area where employees are
required pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section to wear respirators
shall be supplied with a respirator selected in accordance with paragraph
(h)(2) of this section.

(5) Prohibited activities. The employer shall ensure that employees do not
eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in the regulated
area.

(6) Qualified Persons. The employer shall ensure that all asbestos work
performed within regulated areas is supervised by a qualified person, as
defined in paragraph (b) of this section. The duties of the qualified person
are set out in paragraph (o) of this section.

(i) Each employer who has a workplace of work operation where exposure
monitoring is required under this section shall perform monitoring to
determine accurately the airborne concentrations of asbestos to which
employees may be exposed.

(ii) Determinations of employee exposure shall be made from breathing zone
air samples that are representative of the 8-hour TWA and 30-minute
short-term exposures of each employee.

(iii) Representative 8-hour TWA employee exposure shall be determined on the
basis of one or more samples representing full-shift exposure for employees
in each work area. Representative 30-minute short-term employee exposures
shall be determined on the basis of one or more samples representing 30
minute exposures associated with operations that are most likely to produce
exposures above the excursion limit for employees in each work area.

(2) Initial Exposure Assessment.

(i) Each employer who has a workplace or
work operation covered by this standard shall ensure that a "qualified
person" conducts an exposure assessment immediately before or at the
initiation of the operation to ascertain expected exposures during that
operation or workplace. The assessment must be completed in time to comply
with requirements which are triggered by exposure data or the lack of a
"negative exposure assessment," and to provide information necessary to
assure that all control systems planned are appropriate for that operation
and will work properly.

(ii) Basis of Initial Exposure Assessment: The initial exposure assessment
shall be based on data derived from the following sources:

(A) If feasible, the employer shall monitor employees and base the exposure
assessment on the results of exposure monitoring which is conducted pursuant
to the criteria in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section.

(B) In addition, the assessment shall include consideration of all
observations, information or calculations which indicate employee exposure to
asbestos, including any previous monitoring conducted in the workplace, or of
the operations of the employer which indicate the levels of airborne asbestos
likely to be encountered on the job. However, the assessment may conclude
that exposures are likely to be consistently below the PELs only as a
conclusion of a "negative exposure assessment" conducted pursuant to
paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section.

(C) For Class I asbestos work, until the employer conducts exposure
monitoring and documents that employees on that job will not be exposed in
excess of the PELs, or otherwise makes a negative exposure assessment
pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, the employer shall presume
that employees are exposed in excess of the TWA and excursion limit.

(iii) Negative Initial Exposure Assessment: For any one specific asbestos
job which will be performed by employees who have been trained in compliance
with the standard, the employer may demonstrate that employee exposures will
be below the PELs by data which conform to the following criteria;

(A) Objective data demonstrating that the product or material containing
asbestos minerals or the activity involving such product or material cannot
release airborne fibers in concentrations exceeding the TWA and excursion
limit under those work conditions having the greatest potential for releasing
asbestos; or

(B) Where the employer has monitored prior asbestos jobs for the
PEL and the excursion limit within 12 months of the current or projected job,
the monitoring and analysis were performed in compliance with the asbestos
standard in effect; and the data were obtained during work operations
conducted under workplace conditions "closely resembling" the processes, type
of material, control methods, work practices, and environmental conditions
used and prevailing in the employer's current operations, the operations were
conducted by employees whose training and experience are no more extensive
than that of employees performing the current job, and these data show that
under the conditions prevailing and which will prevail in the current
workplace there is a high degree of certainty that employee exposures will
not exceed the TWA and excursion limit; or

(C) The results of initial
exposure monitoring of the current job made from breathing zone air samples
that are representative of the 8- hour TWA and 30-minute short-term exposures
of each employee covering operations which are most likely during the
performance of the entire asbestos job to result in exposures over the PELs.

(3) Periodic monitoring.

(i) Class I and II operations. The employer shall
conduct daily monitoring that is representative of the exposure of each
employee who is assigned to work within a regulated area who is performing
Class I or II work, unless the employer pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of
this section, has made a negative exposure assessment for the entire
operation.

(ii) All operations under the standard other than Class I and II operations.
The employer shall conduct periodic monitoring of all work where exposures
are expected to exceed a PEL, at intervals sufficient to document the
validity of the exposure prediction.

(iii) Exception: When all employees required to be monitored daily are
equipped with supplied-air respirators operated in the positive- pressure
mode, the employer may dispense with the daily monitoring required by this
paragraph. However, employees performing Class I work using a control method
which is not listed in paragraph (g)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section or
using a modification of a listed control method, shall continue to be
monitored daily even if they are equipped with supplied-air respirators.

(4)(i) Termination of monitoring. If the periodic monitoring required by
paragraph (f)(3) of this section reveals that employee exposures, as
indicated by statistically reliable measurement, are below the permissible
exposure limit and excursion limit the employer may discontinue monitoring
for those employees whose exposures are represented by such monitoring.

(ii) Additional monitoring. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph
(f)(2) and (3), and (f)(4) of this section, the employer shall institute the
exposure monitoring required under paragraph (f)(3) of this section whenever
there has been a change in process, control equipment, personnel or work
practices that may result in new or additional exposures above the
permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit or when the employer has
any reason to suspect that a change may result in new or additional exposures
above the permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit. Such additional
monitoring is required regardless of whether a "negative exposure assessment"
was previously produced for a specific job.

(5) Observation of monitoring.

(i) The employer shall provide affected
employees and their designated representatives an opportunity to observe any
monitoring of employee exposure to asbestos conducted in accordance with this
section.

(ii) When observation of the monitoring of employee exposure to asbestos
requires entry into an area where the use of protective clothing or equipment
is required, the observer shall be provided with and be required to use such
clothing and equipment and shall comply with all other applicable safety and
health procedures.

(g) Methods of compliance -- (1) Engineering controls and work practices for
all operations covered by this section. The employer shall use the following
engineering controls and work practices in all operations covered by this
section, regardless of the levels of exposure:

(ii) Wet methods, or wetting agents, to
control employee exposures during asbestos handling, mixing, removal,
cutting, application, and cleanup, except where employers demonstrate that
the use of wet methods is infeasible due to for example, the creation of
electrical hazards, equipment malfunction, and, in roofing, slipping hazards;
and

(iii) Prompt clean-up and disposal of wastes and debris contaminated with
asbestos in leak-tight containers.

(2) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this section
above, the employer shall use the following control methods to achieve
compliance with the TWA permissible exposure limit and excursion limit
prescribed by paragraph (c) of this section;

(iii) Ventilation of the regulated area to move contaminated air away from
the breathing zone of employees and toward a filtration or collection device
equipped with a HEPA filter;

(iv) Use of other work practices and engineering controls that the Assistant
Secretary can show to be feasible.

(v) Wherever the feasible engineering and work practice controls described
above are not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below the
permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c)
of this section, the employer shall use them to reduce employee exposure to
the lowest levels attainable by these controls and shall supplement them by
the use of respiratory protection that complies with the requirements of
paragraph (h) of this section.

(3) Prohibitions. The following work practices and engineering controls
shall not be used for work related to asbestos or for work which disturbs ACM
or PACM, regardless of measured levels of asbestos exposure or the results of
initial exposure assessments:

(i) High-speed abrasive disc saws that are not equipped with point of cut
ventilator or enclosures with HEPA filtered exhaust air.

(ii) Compressed air used to remove asbestos, or materials containing
asbestos, unless the compressed air is used in conjunction with an enclosed
ventilation system designed to capture the dust cloud created by the
compressed air.

(iii) Dry sweeping, shoveling or other dry clean-up of dust and debris
containing ACM and PACM.

(iv) Employee rotation as a means of reducing employee exposure to asbestos.

(4) Class I Requirements. In addition to the provisions of paragraphs (g)(1)
and (2) of this section, the following engineering controls and work
practices and procedures shall be used.

(i) All Class I work, including the installation and operation of the
control system shall be supervised by a qualified person as defined in
paragraph (b) of this section;

(ii) For all Class I jobs involving the removal of more than 25 linear or 10
square feet of TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM; for all other Class I jobs,
where the employer cannot produce a negative exposure assessment pursuant to
paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, or where employees are working in
areas adjacent to the regulated area, while the Class I work is being
performed, the employer shall use one of the following methods to ensure that
airborne asbestos does not migrate from the regulated area:

(A) Critical barriers shall be placed over all openings to the regulated
area: or

(B) The employer shall use another barrier or isolation method which
prevents the migration of airborne asbestos from the regulated area, as
verified by perimeter area surveillance during each work shift at each
boundary of the regulated area, showing no visible asbestos dust; and
perimeter area monitoring showing that clearance levels contained in 40 CFR
Part 763, Subpart E of the EPA Asbestos in Schools Rule are met, or that
perimeter area levels, measured by (PCM) are no more than background levels
representing the same area before the asbestos work began. The results of
such monitoring shall be made known to the employer no later than 24 hours
from the end of the work shift represented by such monitoring.

(iii) For all Class I jobs, HVAC systems shall be isolated in the regulated
area by sealing with a double layer of 6 mil plastic or the equivalent;

(iv) For all Class I jobs, impermeable dropcloths shall be placed on
surfaces beneath all removal activity;

(v) For all Class I jobs, all objects within the regulated area shall be
covered with impermeable dropcloths or plastic sheeting which is secured by
duct tape or an equivalent.

(vi) For all Class I jobs where the employer cannot produce a negative
exposure assessment or where exposure monitoring shows the PELs are exceeded,
the employer shall ventilate the regulated area to move contaminated air away
from the breathing zone of employees toward a HEPA filtration or collection
device.

(5) Specific Control Systems for Class I Work. In addition, Class I asbestos
work shall be performed using one or more of the following control methods
pursuant to the limitations stated below:

(i) Negative Pressure Enclosure (NPE) systems: NPE systems shall be used
where the configuration of the work area does not make the erection of the
enclosure infeasible, with the following specifications and work practices.

(A) Specifications:

(1) The negative pressure enclosure (NPE) may be of any
configuration,

(2) At least 4 air changes per hour shall be maintained in the
NPE,

(3) A minimum of -0.02 column inches of water pressure differential,
relative to outside pressure, shall be maintained within the NPE as evidenced
by manometric measurements,

(4) The NPE shall be kept under negative pressure
throughout the period of its use, and

(5) Air movement shall be directed away
from employees performing asbestos work within the enclosure, and toward a
HEPA filtration or a collection device.

(B) Work Practices:

(1) Before beginning work within the enclosure and at the beginning of each
shift, the NPE shall inspected for breaches and smoke-tested for leaks, and
any leaks sealed.

(3) Loose or damaged ACM adjacent to the box shall be wrapped and sealed in
two layers of 6 mil plastic prior to the job, or otherwise made intact prior
to the job.

(4) A HEPA filtration system shall be used to maintain pressure barrier in
box.

(v) Water Spray Process System: A water spray process system may be used for
removal of ACM and PACM from cold line piping if, employees carrying out such
process have completed a 40-hour separate training course in its use, in
addition to training required for employees performing Class I work. The
system shall meet the following specifications and shall be performed by
employees using the following work practices.

(A) Specifications:

(1) Piping from which insulation will be removed shall be surrounded on 3
sides by rigid framing,

(2) A 360 degree water spray, delivered through
nozzles supplied by a high pressure separate water line, shall be formed
around the piping.

(3) The spray shall collide to form a fine aerosol which provides a liquid
barrier between workers and the ACM and PACM.

(B) Work Practices:

(1) The system shall be run for at least 10 minutes before removal begins.

(2) All removal shall take place within the barrier.

(3) The system
shall be operated by at least three persons, one of whom shall not perform
removal but shall check equipment, and ensure proper operation of the
system.

(4) After removal, the ACM and PACM shall be bagged while still inside the
water barrier.

(vi) A small walk-in enclosure which accommodates no more than two persons
(mini-enclosure) may be used if the disturbance or removal can be completely
contained by the enclosure, with the following specifications and work
practices.

(A) Specifications:

(1) The fabricated or job-made enclosure shall be constructed of 6 mil
plastic or equivalent:

(2) The enclosure shall be placed under negative pressure by means of a HEPA
filtered vacuum or similar ventilation unit:

(B) Work practices:

(1) Before use, the minienclosure shall be inspected for leaks and smoke
tested to detect breaches, and breaches sealed.

(2) Before reuse, the interior shall be completely washed with amended water
and HEPA-vacuumed.

(3) During use air movement shall be directed away from the employee's
breathing zone within the minienclosure.

(6) Alternative control methods for Class I work. Class I work may be
performed using a control method which is not referenced in paragraph (g)(5)
of this section, or which modifies a control method referenced in paragraph
(g)(5) of this section, if the following provisions are complied with:

(i) The control method shall enclose, contain or isolate the processes or
source of airborne asbestos dust, or otherwise capture or redirect such dust
before it enters the breathing zone of employees.

(ii) A certified industrial hygienist or licensed professional engineer who
is also qualified as a project designer as defined in paragraph (b) of this
section, shall evaluate the work area, the projected work practices and the
engineering controls and shall certify in writing that: the planned control
method is adequate to reduce direct and indirect employee exposure to below
the PELs under worst- case conditions of use, and that the planned control
method will prevent asbestos contamination outside the regulated area, as
measured by clearance sampling which meets the requirements of EPA's Asbestos
in Schools Rule issued under AHERA, or perimeter monitoring which meets the
criteria in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(2) of this section.

(A) Where the TSI or surfacing material to be removed is 25 linear or 10
square feet or less , the evaluation required in paragraph (g)(6) of this
section may be performed by a "qualified person", and may omit consideration
of perimeter or clearance monitoring otherwise required.

(B) The evaluation of employee exposure required in paragraph (g)(6) of this
section, shall include and be based on sampling and analytical data
representing employee exposure during the use of such method under worst-case
conditions and by employees whose training and experience are equivalent to
employees who are to perform the current job.

(iii) Before work which involves the removal of more than 25 linear or 10
square feet of TSI or surfacing ACM/PACM is begun using an alternative method
which has been the subject of a paragraph (g)(6) required evaluation and
certification, the employer shall send a copy of such evaluation and
certification to the national office of OSHA, Office of Technical Supportm,
Room N3653, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210.

(7) Work Practices and Engineering Controls for Class II work.

(i)
All Class II work, shall be supervised by a qualified person as defined in
paragraph (b) of this section.

(ii) For all indoor Class II jobs, where the employer has not produced a
negative exposure assessment pursuant to paragraph (f)(4)(iii) of this
section, or where during the job changed conditions indicate there may be
exposure above the PEL or where the employer does not remove the ACM in a
substantially intact state, the employer shall use one of the following
methods to ensure that airborne asbestos does not migrate from the regulated
area;

(A) Critical barriers shall be placed over all openings to the regulated
area; or,

(B) The employer shall use another barrier or isolation method
which prevents the migration of airborne asbestos from the regulated area, as
verified by perimeter area monitoring or clearance monitoring which meets the
criteria set out in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(2) of this section.

(iv) All Class II asbestos work shall be performed using the work practices
and requirements set out above in paragraph (g)(3)(i) through (v) of this
section.

(8) Additional Controls for Class II work. Class II asbestos work shall also
be performed by complying with the work practices and controls designated for
each type of asbestos work to be performed, set out in this paragraph. Where
more than one control method may be used for a type of asbestos work, the
employer may choose one or a combination of designated control methods. Class
II work also may be performed using a method allowed for Class I work, except
that glove bags and glove boxes are allowed if they fully enclose the Class
II material to be removed.

(i) For removing vinyl and asphalt flooring/deck materials which contain ACM
or for which in buildings constructed not later than 1980, the employer has
not verified the absence of ACM pursuant to paragraph (g)(8)(i)(I): the
employer shall ensure that employees comply with the following work practices
and that employees are trained in these practices pursuant to paragraph
(k)(8) of this section:

(C) Resilient sheeting shall be removed by cutting with wetting of the snip
point and wetting during delamination. Rip-up of resilient sheet floor
material is prohibited.

(D) All scraping of residual adhesive and/or backing shall be performed
using wet methods.

(E) Dry sweeping is prohibited.

(F) Mechanical chipping is
prohibited unless performed in a negative pressure enclosure which meets the
requirements of paragraph (g)(5)(iv) of this section.

(G) Tiles shall be removed intact, unless the employer demonstrates that
intact removal is not possible.

(H) When tiles are heated and can be removed intact, wetting may be omitted.

(I) Resilient flooring/deck material in buildings/vessels constructed no
later than 1980, including associated mastic and backing shall be assumed to
be asbestos-containing unless an industrial hygienist determines that it is
asbestos-free using recognized analytical techniques.

(ii) For removing roofing material which contains ACM the employer shall
ensure that the following work practices are followed:

(A) Roofing material shall be removed in an intact state to the extent
feasible.

(D) All loose dust left by the sawing operation must be HEPA vacuumed
immediately.

(E) Unwrapped or unbagged roofing material shall be immediately lowered to
the ground via covered, dust-tight chute, crane or hoist, or placed in an
impermeable waste bag or wrapped in plastic sheeting and lowered to ground no
later than the end of the work shift.

(F) Upon being lowered, unwrapped material shall be transferred to a closed
receptacle in such manner so as to preclude the dispersion of dust.

(G) Roof level heating and ventilation air intake sources shall be isolated
or the ventilation system shall be shut down.

(iii) When removing cementitious asbestos-containing siding, shingles
(CACS), or transite panels containing ACM, the employer shall ensure that the
following work practices are followed:

(A) Cutting, abrading or breaking siding, shingles, or transite panels shall
be prohibited unless the employer can demonstrate that methods less likely to
result in asbestos fiber release cannot be used.

(B) Each panel or shingle shall be sprayed with amended water prior to
removal.

(C) Unwrapped or unbagged panels or shingles shall be immediately lowered to
the ground via covered dust-tight chute, crane or hoist, or placed in an
impervious waste bag or wrapped in plastic sheeting and lowered to the ground
no later than the end of the work shift.

(D) Nails shall be cut with flat, sharp instruments.

(iv) When
removing gaskets containing ACM, the employer shall ensure that the following
work practices are followed:

(A) If a gasket is visibly deteriorated and unlikely to be removed intact,
removal shall be undertaken within a glovebag as described in paragraph
(g)(5)(ii) of this section.

(B) The gasket shall be thoroughly wetted with amended water prior to its
removal.

(C) The wet gasket shall be immediately placed in a disposal
container.

(D) Any scraping to remove residue must be performed wet.

(v) When
performing any other Class II removal of asbestos containing material for
which specific controls have not been listed in paragraph (g)(8)(iv)(A)
through (D) of this section, the employer shall ensure that the following
work practices are complied with.

(A) The material shall be thoroughly wetted with amended water prior and
during its removal.

(B) The material shall be removed in an intact state unless the employer
demonstrates that intact removal is not possible.

(C) Cutting, abrading or breaking the material shall be prohibited unless
the employer can demonstrate that methods less likely to result in asbestos
fiber release are not feasible.

(D) Asbestos-containing material removed, shall be immediately bagged or
wrapped, or kept wetted until transferred to a closed receptacle, no later
than the end of the work shift.

(vi) Alternative Work Practices and Controls. Instead of the work practices
and controls listed in paragraphs (g)(8)(i) through (v) of this section, the
employer may use different or modified engineering and work practice controls
if the following provisions are complied with.

(A) The employer shall demonstrate by data representing employee exposure
during the use of such method under conditions which closely resemble the
conditions under which the method is to be used, that employee exposure will
not exceed the PELs under any anticipated circumstances.

(B) A qualified person shall evaluate the work area, the projected work
practices and the engineering controls, and shall certify in writing, that
the different or modified controls are adequate to reduce direct and indirect
employee exposure to below the PELs under all expected conditions of use and
that the method meets the requirements of this standard. The evaluation shall
include and be based on data representing employee exposure during the use of
such method under conditions which closely resemble the conditions under
which the method is to be used for the current job, and by employees whose
training and experience are equivalent to employees who are to perform the
current job.

(9) Work Practices and Engineering Controls for Class III asbestos work.
Class III asbestos work shall be conducted using engineering and work
practice controls which minimize the exposure to employees performing the
asbestos work and to bystander employees.

(i) The work shall be performed using wet methods.

(ii) To the
extent feasible, the work shall be performed using local exhaust
ventilation.

(iii) Where the disturbance involves drilling, cutting, abrading, sanding,
chipping, breaking, or sawing of thermal system insulation or surfacing
material, the employer shall use impermeable dropcloths and shall isolate the
operation using mini-enclosures or glove bag systems pursuant to paragraph
(g)(5) of this section.

(iv) Where the employer does not demonstrate by a negative exposure
assessment performed in compliance with paragraph (f)(4)(iii) of this section
that the PELs will not be exceeded, or where monitoring results show
exceedances of a PEL, the employer shall contain the area using impermeable
dropcloths and plastic barriers or their equivalent, or shall isolate the
operation using mini-enclosure or glove bag systems pursuant to paragraph
(g)(5) of this section.

(v) Employees performing Class III jobs which involve the disturbance of TSI
or surfacing ACM or PACM or where the employer does not demonstrate by a
"negative exposure assessment" in compliance with paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of
this section that the PELs will not be exceeded or where monitoring results
show exceedances of the PEL, shall wear respirators which are selected, used
and fitted pursuant to provisions of paragraph (h) of this section.

(10) Class IV asbestos work. Class IV asbestos jobs shall be conducted by
employees trained pursuant to the asbestos awareness training program set out
in paragraph (k)(8) of this section. In addition, all Class IV jobs shall be
conducted in conformity with the requirements set out in paragraph (g)(1) of
this section, mandating wet methods, HEPA vacuums, and prompt clean up of
debris containing ACM or PACM.

(i) Employees cleaning up debris and waste in a regulated area where
respirators are required shall wear respirators which are selected, used and
fitted pursuant to provisions of paragraph (h) of this section.

(ii) Employers of employees cleaning up waste and debris in an area where
friable TSI or surfacing ACM/PACM is accessible, shall assume that such waste
and debris contain asbestos.

(11) Specific compliance methods for brake and clutch repair: (i)
Engineering controls and work practices for brake and clutch repair and
service. During automotive brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair
and assembly operations, the employer shall institute engineering controls
and work practices to reduce employee exposure to materials containing
asbestos using a negative pressure enclosure/HEPA vacuum system method or low
pressure/wet cleaning method, which meets the detailed requirements set out
in Appendix L to this section. The employer may also comply using an
equivalent method which follows written procedures which the employer
demonstrates can achieve results equivalent to Method A. For facilities in
which no more than 5 pair of brakes or 5 clutches are inspected,
disassembled, repaired, or assembled per week, the method set for in
paragraph [D] of Appendix L to this section may be used.

(ii) The employer may also comply by using an equivalent method which
follows written procedures, which the employer demonstrates can achieve
equivalent exposure reductions as do the two "preferred methods." Such
demonstration must include monitoring data conducted under workplace
conditions closely resembling the process, type of asbestos containing
materials, control method, work practices and environmental conditions which
the equivalent method will be used, or objective data, which document that
under all reasonably foreseeable conditions of brake and clutch repair
applications, the method results in exposures which are equivalent to the
methods set out in Appendix L.

(h) Respiratory protection (1) General. The employer shall provide
respirators, and ensure that they are used, where required by this section.
Respirators shall be used in the following circumstances:

(i) During all Class I asbestos jobs.

(ii) During all Class II work
where the ACM is not removed in a substantially intact state.

(iii) During all Class II and III work which is not performed using wet
methods.

(iv) During all Class II and III asbestos jobs where the employer does not
produce a "negative exposure assessment".

(v) During all Class III jobs where TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM is being
disturbed.

(vi) During all Class IV work performed within regulated areas where
employees performing other work are required to wear respirators.

(vii) During all work covered by this section where employees are exposed
above the TWA or excursion limit.

(viii) In emergencies.

(2) Respirator selection.

(i) Where
respirators are used, the employer shall select and provide, at no cost to
the employee, the appropriate respirator as specified in Table 1, and shall
ensure that the employee uses the respirator provided.

(ii) The employer shall select respirators from among those jointly approved
as being acceptable for protection by the Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) under the provisions of 30 CFR Part 11.

Note:a. Respirators assigned for high environmental concentrations may be used at lower concentrations, or when required respirator use is independent of concentration

b. A high efficiency filter means a filter that is at least 99.97 percent efficient against mono-dispersed particles of 0.3 micrometers in diameter or larger

(iv) In addition to the above selection criterion, the employer shall
provide a half-mask air purifying respirator, other than a disposable
respirator, equipped with high efficiency filters whenever the employee
performs the following activities: Class II and III asbestos jobs where the
employer does not produce a negative exposure assessment; and Class III jobs
where TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM is being disturbed.

(v) In addition to the above selection criteria, the employer shall provide
a full facepiece supplied air respirator operated in the pressure demand mode
equipped with an auxiliar76y positive pressure self-contained breathing
apparatus for all employees within the regulated area where Class I work is
being performed for which a negative exposure assessment has not been
produced.

(3) Respirator program. (i) Where respiratory protection is used, the
employer shall institute a respirator program in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.134(b), (d), (e), and (f).

(ii) The employer shall permit each employee who uses a filter respirator to
change the filter elements whenever an increase in breathing resistance is
detected and shall maintain an adequate supply of filter elements for this
purpose.

(iii) Employees who wear respirators shall be permitted to leave work areas
to wash their faces and respirator facepieces whenever necessary to prevent
skin irritation associated with respirator use.

(iv) No employee shall be assigned to tasks requiring the use of respirators
if, based on his or her most recent examination, an examining physician
determines that the employee will be unable to function normally wearing a
respirator, or that the safety or health of the employee or of other
employees will be impaired by the use of a respirator. Such employee shall be
assigned to another job or given the opportunity to transfer to a different
position the duties of which he or she is able to perform with the same
employer, in the same geographical area, and with the same seniority, status,
and rate of pay and other job benefits he or she had just prior to such
transfer, if such a different position is available.

(4) Respirator fit testing. (i) The employer shall ensure that the
respirator issued to the employee exhibits the least possible facepiece
leakage and that the respirator is fitted properly.

(ii) Employers shall perform either quantitative or qualitative face fit
tests at the time of initial fitting and at least every 6 months thereafter
for each employee wearing a negative-pressure respirator. The qualitative fit
tests may be used only for testing the fit of half-mask respirators where
they are permitted to be worn, or of full-facepiece air purifying respirators
where they are worn at levels at which half-facepiece air purifying
respirators are permitted. Qualitative and quantitative fit tests shall be
conducted in accordance with Appendix C of this section. The tests shall be
used to select facepieces that provide the required protection as prescribed
in Table 1, in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section.

(i) Protective clothing (1) General. The employer shall provide and require
the use of protective clothing, such as coveralls or similar whole-body
clothing, head coverings, gloves, and foot coverings for any employee exposed
to airborne concentrations of asbestos that exceed the TWA and/or excursion
limit prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, or for which a required
negative exposure assessment is not produced, and for any employee performing
Class I operations which involve the removal of over 25 linear or 10 square
feet of TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM.

(2) Laundering. (i) The employer shall ensure that laundering of
contaminated clothing is done so as to prevent the release of airborne
asbestos in excess of the TWA or excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c)
of this section.

(ii) Any employer who gives contaminated clothing to another person for
laundering shall inform such person of the requirement in paragraph (i)(2)(i)
of this section to effectively prevent the release of airborne asbestos in
excess of the TWA excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c) of this
section.

(3) Contaminated clothing. Contaminated clothing shall be transported in
sealed impermeable bags, or other closed, impermeable containers, and be
labeled in accordance with paragraph (k) of this section.

(4) Inspection of protective clothing. (i) The qualified person shall
examine worksuits worn by employees at least once per workshift for rips or
tears that may occur during performance of work.

(ii) When rips or tears are detected while an employee is working, rips and
tears shall be immediately mended, or the worksuit shall be immediately
replaced.

(i) Decontamination areas: For all Class I jobs involving over 25 linear or
10 square feet of TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM, the employer shall establish
a decontamination area that is adjacent and connected to the regulated area
for the decontamination of such employees. The decontamination area shall
consist of an equipment room, shower area, and clean room in series. The
employer shall ensure that employees enter and exit the regulated area
through the decontamination area.

(A) Equipment room. The equipment room shall be supplied with impermeable,
labeled bags and containers for the containment and disposal of contaminated
protective equipment.

(B) Shower area. Shower facilities shall be provided which comply with 29
CFR 1910.141(d)(3), unless the employer can demonstrate that they are not
feasible. The showers shall be adjacent both to the equipment room and the
clean room, unless the employer can demonstrate that this location is not
feasible. Where the employer can demonstrate that it is not feasible to
locate the shower between the equipment room and the clean room, or where the
work is performed outdoors, or when the work involving asbestos exposure
takes place on board a ship, the employers shall ensure that employees:

(1) Remove asbestos contamination from their worksuits in the equipment room
using a HEPA vacuum before proceeding to a shower that is not adjacent to the
work area; or (2) Remove their contaminated worksuits in the equipment room,
then don clean worksuits, and proceed to a shower that is not adjacent to the
work area.

(C) Clean change room. The clean room shall be equipped with a locker or
appropriate storage container for each employee's use. When the employer can
demonstrate that it is not feasible to provide a clean change area adjacent
to the work area, or where the work is performed outdoors, or when the work
takes place aboard a ship, the employer may permit employees engaged in Class
I asbestos jobs to clean their protective clothing with a portable
HEPA-equipped vacuum before such employees leave the regulated area. Such
employees however must then change into street clothing in clean change areas
provided by the employer which otherwise meet the requirements of this
section.

(iv) Lunch Areas. Whenever food or beverages are consumed at the worksite
where employees are performing Class I asbestos work, the employer shall
provide lunch areas in which the airborne concentrations of asbestos are
below the permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit.

(2) Requirements for Class I work involving less than 25 linear or 10 square
feet of TSI or surfacing and PACM, and for Class II and Class III asbestos
work operations where exposures exceed a PEL or where there is no negative
exposure assessment produced before the operation.

(i) The employer shall establish an equipment room or area that is adjacent
to the regulated area for the decontamination of employees and their
equipment which is contaminated with asbestos which shall consist of an area
covered by a impermeable drop cloth on the floor/deck or horizontal working
surface.

(ii) The area must be of sufficient size as to accommodate cleaning of
equipment and removing personal protective equipment without spreading
contamination beyond the area (as determined by visible accumulations).

(iii) Workclothing must be cleaned with a HEPA vacuum before it is removed.

(iv) All equipment and surfaces of containers filled with ACM must be
cleaned prior to removing them from the equipment room or area.

(v) The employer shall ensure that employees enter and exit the regulated
area through the equipment room or area.

(3) Requirements for Class IV work. Employers shall ensure that employees
performing Class IV work within a regulated area comply with the hygiene
practice required of employees performing work which has a higher
classification within that regulated area. Otherwise employers of employees
cleaning up debris and material which is TSI or surfacing ACM or identified
as PACM shall provide decontamination facilities for such employees which are
required by paragraph (j)(2) of this section.

(4) Smoking in work areas. The employer shall ensure that employees do not
smoke in work areas where they are occupationally exposed to asbestos because
of activities in that work area.

(k) Communication of hazards.

Note: This section applies to the communication of information
concerning asbestos hazards in shipyard employment activities to facilitate
compliance with this standard. Most asbestos-related shipyard activities
involve previously installed building materials. Building/vessel owners often
are the only and/or best sources of information concerning them. Therefore,
they, along with employers of potentially exposed employees, are assigned
specific information conveying and retention duties under this section.
Installed Asbestos Containing Building/Vessel Material: Employers and
building/vessel owners are required to treat TSI and sprayed or troweled on
surfacing materials as asbestos-containing unless the employer, by complying
with paragraph (k)(4) of this section determines that the material is not
asbestos-containing. Asphalt or vinyl flooring/decking material installed in
buildings or vessels no later than 1980 must also be considered as asbestos
containing unless the employer/owner, pursuant to paragraph (g), of this
section determines it is not asbestos containing. If the employer or
building/vessel owner has actual knowledge or should have known, through the
exercise of due diligence, that materials other than TSI and sprayed-on or
troweled-on surfacing materials are asbestos-containing, they must be treated
as such. When communicating information to employees pursuant to this
standard, owners and employers shall identify "PACM" as ACM. Additional
requirements relating to communication of asbestos work on multi-employer
worksites are set out in paragraph (d) of this standard.

(1) Duties of building/vessel and facility owners. (i) Before work subject
to this standard is begun, building/vessel and facility owners shall identify
the presence, location and quantity of ACM, and/or PACM at the work site. All
thermal system insulation and sprayed on or troweled on surfacing materials
in buildings/vessels or substrates constructed no later than 1980 shall be
identified as PACM. In addition, resilient flooring/decking material
installed no later than 1980 shall also be identified as asbestos-containing.

(ii) Building/vessel and/or facility owners shall notify the following
persons of the presence, location and quantity of ACM or PACM, at work sites
in their buildings/facilities/vessels. Notification either shall be in
writing or shall consist of a personal communication between the owner and
the person to whom notification must be given or their authorized
representatives:

(A) Prospective employers applying or bidding for work whose employees
reasonably can be expected to work in or adjacent to areas containing such
material;

(B) Employees of the owner who will work in or adjacent to areas containing
such material:

(C) On multi-employer worksites, all employers of employees who will be
performing work within or adjacent to areas containing such materials;

(D) Tenants who will occupy areas containing such materials.

(2)
Duties of employers whose employees perform work subject to this standard in
or adjacent to areas containing ACM and PACM. Building/vessel and facility
owners whose employees perform such work shall comply with these provisions
to the extent applicable.

(i) Before work in areas containing ACM and PACM is begun, employers shall
identify the presence, location, and quantity of ACM, and/or PACM therein.

(ii) Before work under this standard is performed employers of employees who
will perform such work shall inform the following persons of the location and
quantity of ACM and/or PACM present at the work site and the precautions to
be taken to insure that airborne asbestos is confined to the area.

(A) Owners of the building/vessel or facility;

(B) Employees who will perform such work and employers of employees who work
and/or will be working in adjacent areas;

(iii) Within 10 days of the completion of such work, the employer whose
employees have performed work subject to this standard, shall inform the
building/vessel or facility owner and employers of employees who will be
working in the area of the current location and quantity of PACM and/or ACM
remaining in the former regulated area and final monitoring results, if any.

(3) In addition to the above requirements, all employers who discover ACM
and/or PACM on a work site shall convey information concerning the presence,
location and quantity of such newly discovered ACM and/or PACM to the owner
and to other employers of employees working at the work site, within 24 hours
of the discovery.

(4) Criteria to rebut the designation of installed material as PACM. (i) At
any time, an employer and/or building/vessel owner may demonstrate, for
purposes of this standard, that PACM does not contain asbestos.
Building/vessel owners and/or employers are not required to communicate
information about the presence of building material for which such a
demonstration pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (k)(4)(ii) of this
section has been made. However, in all such cases, the information, data and
analysis supporting the determination that PACM does not contain asbestos,
shall be retained pursuant to paragraph (n) of this section.

(ii) An employer or owner may demonstrate that PACM does not contain
asbestos by the following:

(A) Having a completed inspection conducted pursuant to the requirements of
AHERA (40 CFR Part 763, Subpart E) which demonstrates that the material is
not ACM;

(B) Performing tests of the material containing PACM which demonstrate that
no asbestos is present in the material. Such tests shall include analysis of
3 bulk samples of each homogeneous area of PACM collected in a randomly
distributed manner. The tests, evaluation and sample collection shall be
conducted by an accredited inspector or by a CIH. Analysis of samples shall
be performed by persons or laboratories with proficiency demonstrated by
current successful participation in a nationally recognized testing program
such as the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) of
the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Round Robin
for bulk samples administered by the American Industrial Hygiene Association
(AIHA), or an equivalent nationally-recognized round robin testing program..

(5) At the entrance to mechanical rooms/areas in which employees reasonably
can be expected to enter and which contain TSI or surfacing ACM and PACM, the
building/vessel owner shall post signs which identify the material which is
present, its location, and appropriate work practices which, if followed,
will ensure that ACM and/or PACM will not be disturbed.

(6) Signs. (i) Warning signs that demarcate the regulated area shall be
provided and displayed at each location where a regulated area is required to
be established by paragraph (e) of this section. Signs shall be posted at
such a distance from such a location that an employee may read the signs and
take necessary protective steps before entering the area marked by the signs.

(ii) The warning signs required by (k)(6) of this section shall bear the
following information.

DANGER

ASBESTOS

CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD

AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY

RESPIRATORS AND PROTECTION CLOTHING ARE REQUIRED IN THIS AREA

(7) Labels. (i) Labels shall be affixed to all products containing asbestos
and to all containers containing such products, including waste containers.
Where feasible, installed asbestos products shall contain a visible label.

(ii) Labels shall be printed in large, bold letters on a contrasting
background.

(iii) Labels shall be used in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR
1910.1200(f) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard, and shall contain the
following information:

(vi) The provisions for labels required by paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through
(k)(2)(iii) of this section do not apply where:

(A) Asbestos fibers have been modified by a bonding agent, coating, binder,
or other material, provided that the manufacturer can demonstrate that,
during any reasonably foreseeable use, handling, storage, disposal,
processing, or transportation, no airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers
in excess of the permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit will be
released, or (B) Asbestos is present in a product in concentrations less than
1.0 percent by weight.

(vii) When a building/vessel owner/or employer identifies previously
installed PACM and/or ACM, labels or signs shall be affixed or posted so that
employees will be notified of what materials contain PACM and/or ACM. The
employer shall attach such labels in areas where they will clearly be noticed
by employees who are likely to be exposed, such as at the entrance to
mechanical rooms/areas. Signs required by paragraph (k)(5) of this section
may be posted in lieu of labels so long as they contain information required
for labelling.

(8) Employee information and training. (i) The employer shall, at no cost to
the employee,institute a training program for all employees who install
asbestos containing products and for all employees who perform Class I
through IV asbestos operations, and shall ensure their participation in the
program.

(ii) Training shall be provided prior to or at the time of initial
assignment and at least annually thereafter.

(iii) Training for Class I and II operations shall be the equivalent in
curriculum, training method and length to the EPA Model Accreditation Plan
(MAP) asbestos abatement worker training (40 CFR Pt. 763, Subpt. E, App. C).
For employers whose Class II work with asbestos-containing material involves
only the removal and/or disturbance of one generic category of
building/vessel material, such as roofing materials, flooring/deck materials,
siding materials or transite panels, instead, such employer is required to
train employees who perform such work by providing a training course which
includes as a minimum all the elements included in paragraph (k)(8)(v) of
this section and in addition, the specific work practices and engineering
controls set forth in paragraph (g) of this section which specifically relate
to that material category. Such course shall include "hands-on" training and
shall take at least 8 hours.

(iv) Training for Class III employees shall be the equivalent in curriculum
and training method to the 16-hour Operations and Maintenance course
developed by EPA for maintenance and custodial workers who conduct activities
that will result in the disturbance of ACM. [See 40 CFR 763.92(a)(2)]. Such
course shall include "hands-on" training in the use of respiratory protection
and work practices and shall take at least 16 hours.

(v) Training for employees performing Class IV operations shall be the
equivalent in curriculum and training method to the awareness training course
developed by EPA for maintenance and custodial workers who work in buildings
containing asbestos- containing material. (See 40 CFR 763.92 (a)(1)). Such
course shall include available information concerning the locations of PACM
and ACM, and asbestos-containing flooring material, or flooring material
where the absence of asbestos has not been certified; and instruction in
recognition of damage, deterioration, and delamination of asbestos containing
building materials. Such course shall take at least 2 hours.

(vi) The training program shall be conducted in a manner that the employee
is able to understand. In addition to the content required by provisions in
paragraph (k)(8)(iii) of this section, the employer shall ensure that each
such employee is informed of the following:

(A) Methods of recognizing asbestos, including the requirement in paragraph
(k)(1) of this section to presume that certain building materials contain
asbestos.;

(B) The health effects associated with asbestos exposure;

(C) The relationship between smoking and asbestos in producing lung cancer;

(D) The nature of operations that could result in exposure to asbestos, the
importance of necessary protective controls to minimize exposure including,
as applicable, engineering controls, work practices, respirators,
housekeeping procedures, hygiene facilities, protective clothing,
decontamination procedures, emergency procedures, and waste disposal
procedures, and any necessary instruction in the use of these controls and
procedures; where Class II and IV work will be or is performed, the contents
of EPA 20T-2003, "Managing Asbestos In- Place" July 1990 or its equivalent in
content;

(I) The
names, addresses and phone numbers of public health organizations which
provide information, materials and/or conduct programs concerning smoking
cessation. The employer may distribute the list of such organizations
contained in Appendix J, to comply with this requirement.

(J) The requirements for posting signs and affixing labels and the meaning
of the required legends for such signs and labels.

(9) Access to training materials. (i) The employer shall make readily
available to affected employees without cost written materials relating to
the employee training program, including a copy of this regulation.

(ii) The employer shall provide to the Assistant Secretary and the Director,
upon request, all information and training materials relating to the employee
information and training program.

(iii) The employer shall inform all employees concerning the availability of
self-help smoking cessation program material. Upon employee request, the
employer shall distribute such material, consisting of NIH Publication No,
89-1647, or equivalent self-help material, which is approved or published by
a public health organization listed in Appendix J.

(1) Housekeeping -- (1) Vacuuming. Where vacuuming methods are selected,
HEPA filtered vacuuming equipment must be used. The equipment shall be used
and emptied in a manner that minimizes the reentry of asbestos into the
workplace.

(3) Care of asbestos-containing flooring/deck material. (i) All vinyl and
asphalt flooring/deck material shall be maintained in accordance with this
paragraph unless the building/facility owner demonstrates, pursuant to
paragraph (g) that the flooring/deck does not contain asbestos.

(i) Sanding of flooring/deck material is prohibited.

(ii) Stripping
of finishes shall be conducted using low abrasion pads at speed lower than
300 rpm and wet methods.

(iii) Burnishing or dry buffing may be performed only on flooring/ deck
which has sufficient finish so that the pad cannot contact the flooring/deck
material.

(4) Dust and debris in an area containing accessible thermal system
insulation or surfacing material or visibly deteriorated ACM. (i) shall not
be dusted or swept dry, or vacuumed without using a HEPA filter;

(ii) shall be promptly cleaned up and disposed in leak tight
containers.

(m) Medical surveillance -- (1) General -- (i) Employees covered.
The employer shall institute a medical surveillance program for all employees
who for a combined total of 30 or more days per year are engaged in Class I,
II, and III work or are exposed at or above the permissible exposure limit or
excursion limit, and for employees who wear negative pressure respirators
pursuant to the requirements of this section.

(ii) Examination by a physician.

(A) The employer shall ensure that all
medical examinations and procedures are performed by or under the supervision
of a licensed physician, and are provided at no cost to the employee and at a
reasonable time and place.

(B) Persons other than such licensed physicians who administer the pulmonary
function testing required by this section shall complete a training course in
spirometry sponsored by an appropriate academic or professional institution.

(2) Medical examinations and consultations -- (i) Frequency. The employer
shall make available medical examinations and consultations to each employee
covered under paragraph (m)(1)(i) of this section on the following schedules:

(A) Prior to assignment of the employee to an area where negative-
pressure respirators are worn;

(B) When the employee is assigned to an area where exposure to asbestos may
be at or above the permissible exposure for 30 or more days per year, a
medical examination must be given within 10 working days following the
thirtieth day of exposure;

(C) And at least annually thereafter.

(D) If the examining physician
determines that any of the examinations should be provided more frequently
than specified, the employer shall provide such examinations to affected
employees at the frequencies specified by the physician.

(E) Exception: No medical examination is required of any employee if
adequate records show that the employee has been examined in accordance with
this paragraph within the past 1-year period.

(ii) Content. Medical examinations made available pursuant to paragraphs
(m)(2)(i)(A) through (m)(2)(i)(C) of this section shall include:

(A) A medical and work history with special emphasis directed to the
pulmonary, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal systems.

(B) On initial examination, the standardized questionnaire contained in Part
1 of Appendix D to this section and, on annual examination, the abbreviated
standardized questionnaire contained in Part 2 of Appendix D to this section.

(C) A physical examination directed to the pulmonary and gastrointestinal
systems, including a chest ,x-ray to be administered at the discretion of the
physician, and pulmonary function tests of forced vital capacity (FVC) and
forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV(1)). Interpretation and
classification of chest roentgenogram shall be conducted in accordance with
Appendix E to this section.

(D) Any other examinations or tests deemed necessary by the examining
physician.

(3) Information provided to the physician. The employer shall provide the
following information to the examining physician:

(i) A copy of this standard and Appendices D, E, G, and I to this section;

(ii) A description of the affected employee's duties as they relate to the
employee's exposure;

(iv) A description of any personal protective and respiratory equipment used
or to be used; and

(v) Information from previous medical examinations of the affected employee
that is not otherwise available to the examining physician.

(4) Physician's written opinion. (i) The employer shall obtain a written
opinion from the examining physician. This written opinion shall contain the
results of the medical examination and shall include:

(A) The physician's opinion as to whether the employee has any detected
medical conditions that would place the employee at an increased risk of
material health impairment from exposure to asbestos;

(B) Any recommended limitations on the employee or on the use of personal
protective equipment such as respirators; and

(C) A statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of the
results of the medical examination and of any medical conditions that may
result from asbestos exposure.

(D) A statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of the
increased risk of lung cancer attributable to the combined effect of smoking
and asbestos exposure.

(ii) The employer shall instruct the physician not to reveal in the written
opinion given to the employer specific findings or diagnoses unrelated to
occupational exposure to asbestos.

(iii) The employer shall provide a copy of the physician's written opinion
to the affected employee within 30 days from its receipt.

(i) Where the employer has relied on objective data that
demonstrate that products made from or containing asbestos are not capable of
releasing fibers of asbestos in concentrations at or above the permissible
exposure limit and/or excursion limit under the expected conditions of
processing, use, or handling to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (f) of
this section, the employer shall establish and maintain an accurate record of
objective data reasonably relied upon in support of the exemption.

(ii) The record shall include at least the following information:

(A) The product qualifying for exemption;

(B) The source of the objective data;

(C) The testing protocol, results of testing, and/or analysis of the
material for the release of asbestos;

(D) A description of the operation exempted and how the data support the
exemption; and

(E) Other data relevant to the operations, materials, processing, or
employee exposures covered by the exemption.

(iii) The employer shall maintain this record for the duration of the
employer's reliance upon such objective data.

(2) Exposure measurements. (i) The employer shall keep an accurate record of
all measurements taken to monitor employee exposure to asbestos as prescribed
in paragraph (f) of this section. Note: The employer may utilize the services
of qualified organizations such as industry trade associations and employee
associations to maintain the records required by this section.

(ii) This record shall include at least the following information:

(A) The date of measurement;

(B) The operation involving exposure to asbestos that is being monitored;

(C) Sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their accuracy;

(D) Number, duration, and results of samples taken;

(E) Type of protective devices worn, if any; and

(F) Name, social security number, and exposure of the employees whose
exposures are represented.

(iii) The employer shall maintain this record for at least thirty (30)
years, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.

(3) Medical surveillance. (i) The employer shall establish and maintain an
accurate record for each employee subject to medical surveillance by
paragraph (m) of this section, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.

(ii) The record shall include at least the following information:

(A) The name and social security number of the employee;

(B) A copy of the employee's medical examination results, including the
medical history, questionnaire responses, results of any tests, and
physician's recommendations.

(C) Physician's written opinions;

(D) Any employee medical complaints related to exposure to asbestos; and

(E) A copy of the information provided to the physician as required by
paragraph (m) of this section.

(iii) The employer shall ensure that this record is maintained for the
duration of employment plus thirty (30) years, in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.20.

(4) Training records. The employer shall maintain all employee training
records for one 1 year beyond the last date of employment by that employer.

(5) Data to Rebut PACM:

(i) Where the building owner and employer have relied on data to demonstrate
that PACM is not asbestos-containing, such data shall be maintained for as
long as they are relied upon to rebut the presumption.

(ii) [Reserved]

(6) Records of Required Notification. (i) Where the
building/vessel owner has communicated and received information concerning
the identity, location and quantity of ACM and PACM, written records of such
notifications and their content shall be maintained by the owner for the
duration of ownership and shall be transferred to successive owners of such
buildings/facilities/vessels.

(ii) [Reserved]

(7) Availability. (i) The employer, upon written
request, shall make all records required to be maintained by this section
available to the Assistant Secretary and the Director for examination and
copying.

(ii) The employer, upon request, shall make any exposure records required by
paragraphs (f) and (n) of this section available for examination and copying
to affected employees, former employees, designated representatives, and the
Assistant Secretary, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20(a) through (e) and (g)
through (i).

(iii) The employer, upon request, shall make employee medical records
required by paragraphs (m) and (n) of this section available for examination
and copying to the subject employee, anyone having the specific written
consent of the subject employee, and the Assistant Secretary, in accordance
with 29 CFR 1910.20.

(8) Transfer of records. (i) The employer shall comply with the requirements
concerning transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR 1910.20 (h).

(ii) Whenever the employer ceases to do business and there is no successor
employer to receive and retain the records for the prescribed period, the
employer shall notify the Director at least 90 days prior to disposal and,
upon request, transmit them to the Director.

(o) Qualified person. (1) General. On all shipyard worksites covered by this
standard, the employer shall designate a qualified person, having the
qualifications and authorities for ensuring worker safety and health required
by Subpart C, General Safety and Health Provisions for Construction (29 CFR
1926.20 through 1926.32).

(2) Required Inspections by the Qualified Person. Sec. 1926.20(b)(2) which
requires health and safety prevention programs to provide for frequent and
regular inspections of the job sites, materials, and equipment to be made by
qualified persons, is incorporated.

(3) Additional Inspections. In addition, the qualified person shall make
frequent and regular inspections of the job sites, in order to perform the
duties set out in paragraph (p)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. For Class I
jobs, on-site inspections shall be made at least once during each work shift,
and at any time at employee request. For Class II and III jobs, on-site
inspections shall be made at intervals sufficient to assess whether
conditions have changed, and at any reasonable time at employee request.

(i) On all worksites where employees are engaged in Class I or II asbestos
work, the qualified person designated in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of
this section shall perform or supervise the following duties, as applicable:

(A) Set up the regulated area, enclosure, or other containment;

(B) Ensure (by on-site inspection) the integrity of the enclosure or
containment;

(C) Set up procedures to control entry to and exit from the enclosure and/or
area;

(D) Supervise all employee exposure monitoring required by this section and
ensure that it is conducted as required by paragraph (f) of this section;

(E) Ensure that employees working within the enclosure and/or using glove
bags wear protective clothing and respirators as required by paragraphs (h)
and (i) of this section;

(F) Ensure through on-site supervision, that employees set up and remove
engineering controls, use work practices and personal protective equipment in
compliance with all requirements;

(G) Ensure that employees use the hygiene facilities and observe the
decontamination procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this section;

(H) Ensure that though on-site inspection engineering controls are
functioning properly and employees are using proper work practices; and

(I) Ensure that notification requirements in paragraph (f)(6) of this
section are met.

(4) Training for the competent person;

(i) For Class I and II asbestos work the qualified person shall be trained
in all aspects of asbestos removal and handling, including: abatement,
installation, removal and handling; the contents of this standard; the
identification of asbestos; removal procedures, where appropriate; and other
practices for reducing the hazard. Such training shall be obtained in a
comprehensive course for supervisors, such as a course conducted by an EPA or
state-approved training provider, certified by the EPA or a state, or an
course equivalent in stringency, content, and length.

(ii) For Class III asbestos work operations, the qualified person shall be
trained in aspects of asbestos handling appropriate for the nature of the
work, to include procedures for setting up glove bags and mini-enclosures,
practices for reducing asbestos exposures, use of wet methods, the contents
of this standard, and the identification of asbestos. Such training shall be
obtained in a comprehensive course for supervisors, such as a course
conducted by an EPA or state-approved training provider, certified by the EPA
or a state, or an equivalent in stringency, content, and length.

(p) Appendices. (1) Appendices A, C, D, and E to this section are
incorporated as part of this section and the contents of these appendices are
mandatory.

(2) Appendices B, F, H, I, J, and K to this section are informational and
are not intended to create any additional obligations not otherwise imposed
or to detract from any existing obligations.

(q) Dates. (1) This standard shall become effective October 11,
1994. (2) The provisions of 29 CFR 1926.58 and 29 CFR 1910.1001 remain in
effect until the start-up dates of the equivalent provisions of this
standard.

(3) Start-up dates: All obligations of this standard commence on the
effective date except as follows:

(i) Methods of compliance. The engineering and work practice controls
required by paragraph (g) of this section shall be implemented as soon as
possible but no later than April 10, 1995.

(ii) Respiratory protection. Respiratory protection required by paragraph
(h) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible but no later than
February 8, 1995.

(iii) Hygiene facilities and practices for employees. Hygiene facilities and
practices required by paragraph (j) of this section shall be provided as soon
as possible but no later than February 8, 1995.

(iv) Communication of hazards. Identification, notification, labeling and
sign posting, and training required by paragraph (k) of this section shall be
provided as soon as possible, but no later than April 10, 1995.

(v) Housekeeping. Housekeeping practices and controls required by paragraph
(l) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible, but no later than
January 9, 1995.

(vi) Medical surveillance required by paragraph (m) of this section shall be
provided as soon as possible, but no later than January 9, 1995.

(vii) The designation and training of competent persons required by
paragraph (o) of this section shall completed as soon as possible but no
later than April 10, 1995.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number
1218-0195)

Appendix A to 1915.1001. OSHA Reference Method. -- Mandatory

This mandatory appendix specifies the procedure for analyzing air samples
for asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite and specifies quality
control procedures that must be implemented by laboratories performing the
analysis. The sampling and analytical methods described below represent the
elements of the available monitoring methods (such as appendix B to this
section, the most current version of the OSHA method ID-60, or the most
current version of the NIOSH 7400 method) which OSHA considers to be
essential to achieve adequate employee exposure monitoring while allowing
employers to use methods that are already established within their
organizations. All employers who are required to conduct air monitoring under
paragraph (f) of this section are required to utilize analytical laboratories
that use this procedure, or an equivalent method, for collecting and
analyzing samples.

Sampling and Analytical Procedure

1. The sampling medium for air samples shall be mixed cellulose ester filter
membranes. These shall be designated by the manufacturer as suitable for
asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite counting. See below for
rejection of blanks.

2. The preferred collection device shall be the 25-mm diameter cassette with
an open-faced 50-mm extension cowl. The 37-mm cassette may be used if
necessary but only if written justification for the need to use the 37-mm
filter cassette accompanies the sample results in the employee's exposure
monitoring record. Do not reuse or reload cassettes for asbestos sample
collection.

3. An air flow rate between 0.5 liter/min and 2.5 liters/min shall be
selected for the 25-mm cassette. If the 37-mm cassette is used, an air flow
rate between 1 liter/min and 2.5 liters/min shall be selected.

4. Where possible, a sufficient air volume for each air sample shall be
collected to yield between 100 and 1,300 fibers per square millimeter on the
membrane filter. If a filter darkens in appearance or if loose dust is seen
on the filter, a second sample shall be started.

5. Ship the samples in a rigid container with sufficient packing material to
prevent dislodging the collected fibers. Packing material that has a high
electrostatic charge on its surface (e.g., expanded polystyrene) cannot be
used because such material can cause loss of fibers to the sides of the
cassette.

6. Calibrate each personal sampling pump before and after use with a
representative filter cassette installed between the pump and the calibration
devices.

7. Personal samples shall be taken in the "breathing zone" of the employee
(i.e., attached to or near the collar or lapel near the worker's face).

8. Fiber counts shall be made by positive phase contrast using a microscope
with an 8 to 10 X eyepiece and a 40 to 45 X objective for a total
magnification of approximately 400 X and a numerical aperture of 0.65 to
0.75. The microscope shall also be fitted with a green or blue filter.

9. The microscope shall be fitted with a Walton-Beckett eyepiece graticule
calibrated for a field diameter of 100 micrometers (+/- 2 micrometers).

10. The phase-shift detection limit of the microscope shall be about 3
degrees measured using the HSE phase shift test slide as outlined below.

a. Place the test slide on the microscope stage and center it under the
phase objective.

b. Bring the blocks of grooved lines into focus.

Note: The
slide consists of seven sets of grooved lines (ca. 20 grooves to each block)
in descending order of visibility from sets 1 to 7, seven being the least
visible. The requirements for asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and
actinolite counting are that the microscope optics must resolve the grooved
lines in set 3 completely, although they may appear somewhat faint, and that
the grooved lines in sets 6 and 7 must be invisible. Sets 4 and 5 must be at
least partially visible but may vary slightly in visibility between
microscopes. A microscope that fails to meet these requirements has either
too low or too high a resolution to be used for asbestos, tremolite,
anthophyllite, and actinolite counting.

c. If the image deteriorates, clean and adjust the microscope optics. If the
problem persists, consult the microscope manufacturer.

11. Each set of samples taken will include 10 percent blanks or a minimum of
2 blanks. These blanks must come from the same lot as the filters used for
sample collection. The field blank results shall be averaged and subtracted
from the analytical results before reporting. Any samples represented by a
blank having a fiber count in excess of the detection limit of the method
being used shall be rejected.

12. The samples shall be mounted by the acetone/triacetin method or a method
with an equivalent index of refraction and similar clarity.

13. Observe the following counting rules.

a. Count only fibers equal
to or longer than 5 micrometers. Measure the length of curved fibers along
the curve.

b. Count all particles as asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite
that have a length-to-width ratio (aspect ratio) of 3:1 or greater.

c. Fibers lying entirely within the boundary of the Walton- Beckett
graticule field shall receive a count of 1. Fibers crossing the boundary
once, having one end within the circle, shall receive the count of one half
(1/2). Do not count any fiber that crosses the graticule boundary more than
once. Reject and do not count any other fibers even though they may be
visible outside the graticule area.

d. Count bundles of fibers as one fiber unless individual fibers can be
identified by observing both ends of an individual fiber.

1. Intra-laboratory program. Each laboratory and/or each company with more
than one microscopist counting slides shall establish a statistically
designed quality assurance program involving blind recounts and comparisons
between microscopists to monitor the variability of counting by each
microscopist and between microscopists. In a company with more than one
laboratory, the program shall include all laboratories and shall also
evaluate the laboratory-to-laboratory variability.

2. a. Interlaboratory program. Each laboratory analyzing asbestos,
tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite samples for compliance determination
shall implement an interlaboratory quality assurance program that as a
minimum includes participation of at least two other independent
laboratories. Each laboratory shall participate in round robin testing at
least once every 6 months with at least all the other laboratories in its
interlaboratory quality assurance group. Each laboratory shall submit slides
typical of its own work load for use in this program. The round robin shall
be designed and results analyzed using appropriate statistical methodology.

b. All laboratories should participate in a national sample testing scheme
such as the Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT), the Asbestos
Registry sponsored by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).

3. All individuals performing asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and
actinolite analysis must have taken the NIOSH course for sampling and
evaluating airborne asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite dust
or an equivalent course.

4. When the use of different microscopes contributes to differences between
counters and laboratories, the effect of the different microscope shall be
evaluated and the microscope shall be replaced, as necessary.

5. Current results of these quality assurance programs shall be posted in
each laboratory to keep the microscopists informed.

A known volume of air is drawn through a 25-mm diameter cassette containing a mixed-cellulose ester filter. The cassette must be equipped with an electrically conductive 50-mm extension cowl. The sampling time and rate are chosen to give a fiber density of between 100 to 1,300 fibers/mm(2) on the filter

Recommended Sampling Rate

0.5 to 5.0 liters/minute (L/min)

Recommended Air Volumes:

Minimum

25 L

Maximum

2,400 L

Analytical Procedure: A portion of the sample filter is cleared and prepared
for asbestos fiber counting by Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) at 400X.

Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method are for
descriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by USDOL-OSHA.
Similar products from other sources can be substituted.

1. Introduction

This method describes the collection of airborne asbestos fibers using
calibrated sampling pumps with mixed-cellulose ester (MCE) filters and
analysis by phase contrast microscopy (PCM). Some terms used are unique to
this method and are defined below: Asbestos: A term for naturally occurring
fibrous minerals. Asbestos includes chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite
(cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos), tremolite asbestos, actinolite asbestos,
anthophyllite asbestos, and any of these minerals that have been chemically
treated and/or altered. The precise chemical formulation of each species will
vary with the location from which it was mined. Nominal compositions are
listed:

Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos which meets the criteria specified below
for a fiber.

Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of a fiber to it's diameter (e.g. 3:1,
5:1 aspect ratios).

Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by comminution of minerals,
especially those characterized by parallel sides and a moderate aspect ratio
(usually less than 20:1).

Detection Limit: The number of fibers necessary to be 95% certain that the
result is greater than zero.

Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of excluding certain
kinds of fibers from the fiber count because they do not appear to be
asbestos.

Fiber: A particle that is 5 um or longer, with a length-to-width ratio of 3
to 1 or longer.

Field: The area within the graticule circle that is superimposed on the
microscope image.

Set: The samples which are taken, submitted to the laboratory, analyzed, and
for which, interim or final result reports are generated.

Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite: The non-asbestos form of these
minerals which meet the definition of a fiber. It includes any of these
minerals that have been chemically treated and/or altered.

Walton-Beckett Graticule: An eyepiece graticule specifically designed for
asbestos fiber counting. It consists of a circle with a projected diameter of
100 plus or minus 2 um (area of about 0.00785 mm(2)) with a crosshair having
tic-marks at 3-um intervals in one direction and 5-um in the orthogonal
direction. There are marks around the periphery of the circle to demonstrate
the proper sizes and shapes of fibers. This design is reproduced in Figure 2.
The disk is placed in one of the microscope eyepieces so that the design is
superimposed on the field of view.

1.1. History

Early surveys to determine asbestos exposures were conducted using impinger
counts of total dust with the counts expressed as million particles per cubic
foot. The British Asbestos Research Council recommended filter membrane
counting in 1969. In July 1969, the Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health
published a filter membrane method for counting asbestos fibers in the United
States. This method was refined by NIOSH and published as P&CAM 239. On May
29, 1971, OSHA specified filter membrane sampling with phase contrast
counting for evaluation of asbestos exposures at work sites in the United
States. The use of this technique was again required by OSHA in 1986. Phase
contrast microscopy has continued to be the method of choice for the
measurement of occupational exposure to asbestos.

1.2. Principle

Air is drawn through a MCE filter to capture airborne asbestos fibers. A
wedge shaped portion of the filter is removed, placed on a glass microscope
slide and made transparent. A measured area (field) is viewed by PCM. All the
fibers meeting a defined criteria for asbestos are counted and considered a
measure of the airborne asbestos concentration.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

There are four main advantages of PCM over other methods:

(1) The technique is specific for fibers. Phase contrast is a fiber counting
technique which excludes non-fibrous particles from the analysis.

(2) The technique is inexpensive and does not require specialized knowledge
to carry out the analysis for total fiber counts.

(3) The analysis is quick and can be performed on-site for rapid
determination of air concentrations of asbestos fibers.

(4) The technique has continuity with historical epidemiological studies so
that estimates of expected disease can be inferred from long-term
determinations of asbestos exposures.

The main disadvantage of PCM is that it does not positively identify
asbestos fibers. Other fibers which are not asbestos may be included in the
count unless differential counting is performed. This requires a great deal
of experience to adequately differentiate asbestos from non-asbestos fibers.
Positive identification of asbestos must be performed by polarized light or
electron microscopy techniques. A further disadvantage of PCM is that the
smallest visible fibers are about 0.2 um in diameter while the finest
asbestos fibers may be as small as 0.02 um in diameter. For some exposures,
substantially more fibers may be present than are actually counted.

1.4. Workplace Exposure

Asbestos is used by the construction industry in such products as shingles,
floor tiles, asbestos cement, roofing felts, insulation and acoustical
products. Non-construction uses include brakes, clutch facings, paper,
paints, plastics, and fabrics. One of the most significant exposures in the
workplace is the removal and encapsulation of asbestos in schools, public
buildings, and homes. Many workers have the potential to be exposed to
asbestos during these operations.

About 95% of the asbestos in commercial use in the United States is
chrysotile. Crocidolite and amosite make up most of the remainder.
Anthophyllite and tremolite or actinolite are likely to be encountered as
contaminants in various industrial products.

1.5. Physical Properties

Asbestos fiber possesses a high tensile strength along its axis, is
chemically inert, non-combustible, and heat resistant. It has a high
electrical resistance and good sound absorbing properties. It can be weaved
into cables, fabrics or other textiles, and also matted into asbestos papers,
felts, or mats.

2. Range and Detection Limit

2.1. The ideal counting range on the filter is 100 to 1,300 fibers/mm(2).
With a Walton-Beckett graticule this range is equivalent to 0.8 to 10
fibers/field. Using NIOSH counting statistics, a count of 0.8 fibers/field
would give an approximate coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.13.

2.2. The detection limit for this method is 4.0 fibers per 100 fields or 5.5
fibers/mm(2). This was determined using an equation to estimate the maximum
CV possible at a specific concentration (95% confidence) and a Lower Control
Limit of zero. The CV value was then used to determine a corresponding
concentration from historical CV vs fiber relationships. As an example:

Lower Control Limit (95% Confidence) = AC -- 1.645(CV)(AC)

Where:

AC = Estimate of the airborne fiber concentration (fibers/cc)

Setting the Lower Control Limit = 0 and solving for CV:

0 = AC -- 1.645(CV)(AC) CV = 0.61 This value was compared with CV vs. count
curves. The count at which CV = 0.61 for Leidel-Busch counting statistics
(8.9.) or for an OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center (OSHA-SLTC) CV curve (see
Appendix A for further information) was 4.4 fibers or 3.9 fibers per 100
fields, respectively. Although a lower detection limit of 4 fibers per 100
fields is supported by the OSHA-SLTC data, both data sets support the 4.5
fibers per 100 fields value.

3. Method Performance -- Precision and Accuracy

Precision is dependent upon the total number of fibers counted and the
uniformity of the fiber distribution on the filter. A general rule is to
count at least 20 and not more than 100 fields. The count is discontinued
when 100 fibers are counted, provided that 20 fields have already been
counted. Counting more than 100 fibers results in only a small gain in
precision. As the total count drops below 10 fibers, an accelerated loss of
precision is noted.

At this time, there is no known method to determine the absolute accuracy of
the asbestos analysis. Results of samples prepared through the Proficiency
Analytical Testing (PAT) Program and analyzed by the OSHA-SLTC showed no
significant bias when compared to PAT reference values. The PAT samples were
analyzed from 1987 to 1989 (N=36) and the concentration range was from 120 to
1,300 fibers/mm(2).

4. Interferences

Fibrous substances, if present, may interfere with asbestos
analysis. Some common fibers are:

Fiber glass........................ Perlite veins.

Anhydrite plant fibers
gypsum...... Some synthetic fibers.

Membrane structures................
Sponge spicules and diatoms.

Microorganisms.....................
Wollastonite.

The use of electron microscopy or optical tests such as polarized light, and
dispersion staining may be used to differentiate these materials from
asbestos when necessary.

Notes: (a) DO NOT RE-USE CASSETTES. (b) Fully conductive
cassettes are required to reduce fiber loss to the sides of the cassette due
to electrostatic attraction.
(c) Purchase filters which have been selected by the manufacturer for
asbestos counting or analyze representative filters for fiber background
before use. Discard the filter lot if more than 4 fibers/100 fields are
found.
(d) To decrease the possibility of contamination, the sampling system
(filter-backup pad-cassette) for asbestos is usually preassembled by the
manufacturer.

5.1.2. Gel bands for sealing cassettes.

5.1.3. Sampling pump. Each
pump must be a battery operated, self-contained unit small enough to be
placed on the monitored employee and not interfere with the work being
performed. The pump must be capable of sampling at 2.5 liters per minute
(L/min) for the required sampling time.

5.2.1. Seal the point where the base and cowl of each cassette meet (see
Figure 3) with a gel band or tape.

5.2.2. Charge the pumps completely before beginning.

5.2.3. Connect
each pump to a calibration cassette with an appropriate length of 6-mm bore
plastic tubing. Do not use luer connectors -- the type of cassette specified
above has built-in adapters.

5.2.4. Select an appropriate flow rate for the situation being monitored.
The sampling flow rate must be between 0.5 and 5.0 L/min for personal
sampling and is commonly set between 1 and 2 L/min. Always choose a flow rate
that will not produce overloaded filters.

5.2.5. Calibrate each sampling pump before and after sampling with a
calibration cassette in-line (Note: This calibration cassette should be from
the same lot of cassettes used for sampling). Use a primary standard (e.g.
bubble burette) to calibrate each pump. If possible, calibrate at the
sampling site.

Note: If sampling site calibration is not possible, environmental
influences may affect the flow rate. The extent is dependent on the type of
pump used. Consult with the pump manufacturer to determine dependence on
environmental influences. If the pump is affected by temperature and pressure
changes, use the formula in Appendix B to this section to calculate the
actual flow rate.

5.2.6. Connect each pump to the base of each sampling cassette with flexible
tubing. Remove the end cap of each cassette and take each air sample open
face. Assure that each sample cassette is held open side down in the
employee's breathing zone during sampling. The distance from the nose/mouth
of the employee to the cassette should be about 10 cm. Secure the cassette on
the collar or lapel of the employee using spring clips or other similar
devices.

5.2.7. A suggested minimum air volume when sampling to determine TWA
compliance is 25 L. For Excursion Limit (30 min sampling time) evaluations, a
minimum air volume of 48 L is recommended.

5.2.8. The most significant problem when sampling for asbestos is
overloading the filter with non-asbestos dust. Suggested maximum air sample
volumes for specific environments are:

Environment

(L)

Asbestos removal operations (visible dust)

100

Asbestos removal operations (little dust)

240

Office environments

400 to 2,400

Caution: Do not overload the filter with dust. High levels of non-fibrous
dust particles may obscure fibers on the filter and lower the count or make
counting impossible. If more than about 25 to 30% of the field area is
obscured with dust, the result may be biased low. Smaller air volumes may be
necessary when there is excessive non-asbestos dust in the air.

While sampling, observe the filter with a small flashlight. If there is a
visible layer of dust on the filter, stop sampling, remove and seal the
cassette, and replace with a new sampling assembly. The total dust loading
should not exceed 1 mg.

5.2.9. Blank samples are used to determine if any contamination has occurred
during sample handling. Prepare two blanks for the first 1 to 20 samples. For
sets containing greater than 20 samples, prepare blanks as 10% of the
samples. Handle blank samples in the same manner as air samples with one
exception: Do not draw any air through the blank samples. Open the blank
cassette in the place where the sample cassettes are mounted on the employee.
Hold it open for about 30 seconds. Close and seal the cassette appropriately.
Store blanks for shipment with the sample cassettes.

5.2.10. Immediately after sampling, close and seal each cassette with the
base and plastic plugs. Do not touch or puncture the filter membrane as this
will invalidate the analysis.

5.2.11. Attach a seal (OSHA-21 or equivalent) around each cassette in such a
way as to secure the end cap plug and base plug. Tape the ends of the seal
together since the seal is not long enough to be wrapped end-to-end. Also
wrap tape around the cassette at each joint to keep the seal secure.

5.3. Sample Shipment

5.3.1. Send the samples to the laboratory with paperwork requesting asbestos
analysis. List any known fibrous interferences present during sampling on the
paperwork. Also, note the workplace operation(s) sampled.

5.3.2. Secure and handle the samples in such that they will not rattle
during shipment nor be exposed to static electricity. Do not ship samples in
expanded polystyrene peanuts, vermiculite, paper shreds, or excelsior. Tape
sample cassettes to sheet bubbles and place in a container that will cushion
the samples without rattling.

6.1.1. Acetone is extremely flammable and precautions must be taken not to
ignite it. Avoid using large containers or quantities of acetone. Transfer
the solvent in a ventilated laboratory hood. Do not use acetone near any open
flame. For generation of acetone vapor, use a spark free heat source.

6.1.2. Any asbestos spills should be cleaned up immediately to prevent
dispersal of fibers. Prudence should be exercised to avoid contamination of
laboratory facilities or exposure of personnel to asbestos. Asbestos spills
should be cleaned up with wet methods and/ or a High Efficiency
Particulate-Air (HEPA) filtered vacuum.

Caution: Do not use a vacuum without a HEPA filter -- It will disperse fine
asbestos fibers in the air.

6.2. Equipment

6.2.1. Phase contrast microscope with binocular or trinocular head.

6.2.2. Widefield or Huygenian 10X eyepieces (NOTE: The eyepiece containing
the graticule must be a focusing eyepiece. Use a 40X phase objective with a
numerical aperture of 0.65 to 0.75).

A way to prepare standard asbestos samples of known concentration has not
been developed. It is possible to prepare replicate samples of nearly equal
concentration. This has been performed through the PAT program. These
asbestos samples are distributed by the AIHA to participating laboratories.

Since only about one-fourth of a 25-mm sample membrane is required for an
asbestos count, any PAT sample can serve as a "standard" for replicate
counting.

6.5. Sample Mounting

Note: See Safety Precautions in Section 6.1. before proceeding. The
objective is to produce samples with a smooth (non-grainy) background in a
medium with a refractive index of approximately 1.46. The technique below
collapses the filter for easier focusing and produces permanent mounts which
are useful for quality control and interlaboratory comparison.

An aluminum block or similar device is required for sample
preparation.

6.5.1. Heat the aluminum block to about 70 deg. C. The hot block
should not be used on any surface that can be damaged by either the heat or
from exposure to acetone.

6.5.2. Ensure that the glass slides and cover glasses are free of dust and
fibers.

6.5.3. Remove the top plug to prevent a vacuum when the cassette is opened.
Clean the outside of the cassette if necessary. Cut the seal and/or tape on
the cassette with a razor blade. Very carefully separate the base from the
extension cowl, leaving the filter and backup pad in the base.

6.5.4. With a rocking motion cut a triangular wedge from the filter using
the scalpel. This wedge should be one-sixth to one- fourth of the filter.
Grasp the filter wedge with the forceps on the perimeter of the filter which
was clamped between the cassette pieces. DO NOT TOUCH the filter with your
finger. Place the filter on the glass slide sample side up. Static
electricity will usually keep the filter on the slide until it is cleared.

6.5.5. Place the tip of the micropipette containing about 200 uL acetone
into the aluminum block. Insert the glass slide into the receiving slot in
the aluminum block. Inject the acetone into the block with slow, steady
pressure on the plunger while holding the pipette firmly in place. Wait 3 to
5 seconds for the filter to clear, then remove the pipette and slide from the
aluminum block.

6.5.6. Immediately (less than 30 seconds) place 2.5 to 3.5 uL of triacetin
on the filter (Note: Waiting longer than 30 seconds will result in
increased index of refraction and decreased contrast between the fibers and
the preparation. This may also lead to separation of the cover slip from the
slide).

6.5.7. Lower a cover slip gently onto the filter at a slight angle to reduce
the possibility of forming air bubbles. If more than 30 seconds have elapsed
between acetone exposure and triacetin application, glue the edges of the
cover slip to the slide with lacquer or nail polish.

6.5.8. If clearing is slow, warm the slide for 15 min on a hot plate having
a surface temperature of about 50 deg. C to hasten clearing. The top of the
hot block can be used if the slide is not heated too long.

6.5.9. Counting may proceed immediately after clearing and mounting are
completed.

6.6. Sample Analysis

Completely align the microscope according to the manufacturer's
instructions. Then, align the microscope using the following general
alignment routine at the beginning of every counting session and more often
if necessary.

6.6.1. Alignment

(1) Clean all optical surfaces. Even a small amount of dirt can
significantly degrade the image.

(2) Rough focus the objective on a sample.

(3) Close down the field
iris so that it is visible in the field of view. Focus the image of the iris
with the condenser focus. Center the image of the iris in the field of
view.

(4) Install the phase telescope and focus on the phase rings. Critically
center the rings. Misalignment of the rings results in astigmatism which will
degrade the image.

(5) Place the phase-shift test slide on the microscope stage and focus on
the lines. The analyst must see line set 3 and should see at least parts of 4
and 5 but, not see line set 6 or 6. A microscope/microscopist combination
which does not pass this test may not be used.

6.6.2. Counting Fibers

(1) Place the prepared sample slide on the mechanical stage of the
microscope. Position the center of the wedge under the objective lens and
focus upon the sample.

(2) Start counting from one end of the wedge and progress along a radial
line to the other end (count in either direction from perimeter to wedge
tip). Select fields randomly, without looking into the eyepieces, by slightly
advancing the slide in one direction with the mechanical stage control.

(3) Continually scan over a range of focal planes (generally the upper 10 to
15 um of the filter surface) with the fine focus control during each field
count. Spend at least 5 to 15 seconds per field.

(4) Most samples will contain asbestos fibers with fiber diameters less than
1 um. Look carefully for faint fiber images. The small diameter fibers will
be very hard to see. However, they are an important contribution to the total
count.

(5) Count only fibers equal to or longer than 5 um. Measure the length of
curved fibers along the curve.

(6) Count fibers which have a length to width ratio of 3:1 or
greater.

(7) Count all the fibers in at least 20 fields. Continue counting
until either 100 fibers are counted or 100 fields have been viewed; whichever
occurs first. Count all the fibers in the final field.

(8) Fibers lying entirely within the boundary of the Walton- Beckett
graticule field shall receive a count of 1. Fibers crossing the boundary
once, having one end within the circle shall receive a count of 1/2. Do not
count any fiber that crosses the graticule boundary more than once. Reject
and do not count any other fibers even though they may be visible outside the
graticule area. If a fiber touches the circle, it is considered to cross the
line.

(9) Count bundles of fibers as one fiber unless individual fibers can be
clearly identified and each individual fiber is clearly not connected to
another counted fiber. See Figure 2 for counting conventions.

(10) Record the number of fibers in each field in a consistent way such that
filter non-uniformity can be assessed.

(11) Regularly check phase ring alignment.

(12) When an agglomerate
(mass of material) covers more than 25% of the field of view, reject the
field and select another. Do not include it in the number of fields
counted.

(13) Perform a "blind recount" of 1 in every 10 filter wedges (slides).
Re-label the slides using a person other than the original counter.

6.7. Fiber Identification

As previously mentioned in Section 1.3., PCM does not provide positive
confirmation of asbestos fibers. Alternate differential counting techniques
should be used if discrimination is desirable. Differential counting may
include primary discrimination based on morphology, polarized light analysis
of fibers, or modification of PCM data by Scanning Electron or Transmission
Electron Microscopy.

A great deal of experience is required to routinely and correctly perform
differential counting. It is discouraged unless it is legally necessary.
Then, only if a fiber is obviously not asbestos should it be excluded from
the count. Further discussion of this technique can be found in reference
8.10.

If there is a question whether a fiber is asbestos or not, follow the rule:

"WHEN IN DOUBT, COUNT."

6.8. Analytical Recommendations -- Quality Control System

6.8.1. All individuals performing asbestos analysis must have taken the
NIOSH course for sampling and evaluating airborne asbestos or an equivalent
course.

6.8.2. Each laboratory engaged in asbestos counting shall set up a slide
trading arrangement with at least two other laboratories in order to compare
performance and eliminate inbreeding of error. The slide exchange occurs at
least semiannually. The round robin results shall be posted where all
analysts can view individual analyst's results.

6.8.4. Each analyst shall select and count prepared slides from a "slide
bank". These are quality assurance counts. The slide bank shall be prepared
using uniformly distributed samples taken from the workload. Fiber densities
should cover the entire range routinely analyzed by the laboratory. These
slides are counted blind by all counters to establish an original standard
deviation. This historical distribution is compared with the quality
assurance counts. A counter must have 95% of all quality control samples
counted within three standard deviations of the historical mean. This count
is then integrated into a new historical mean and standard deviation for the
slide.

The analyses done by the counters to establish the slide bank may be used
for an interim quality control program if the data are treated in a proper
statistical fashion.

7. Calculations

7.1. Calculate the estimated airborne asbestos fiber concentration on the
filter sample using the following formula:

(For Equation, see paper copy)

Where:

AC

=

Airborne fiber concentration

FB

=

Total number of fibers greater than 5 um counted

FL

=

Total number of fields counted on the filter

BFB

=

Total number of fibers greater than 5 um counted in the blank

BFL

=

Total number of fields counted on the blank

ECA

=

Effective collecting area of filter (385 mm(2) nominal for a 25-mm filter.)

FR

=

Pump flow rate (L/min)

MFA

=

Microscope count field area (mm(2)). This is 0.00785 mm(2) for a Walton-Beckett Graticule

T

=

Sample collection time (min)

1,000

=

Conversion of L to cc

Note: The collection area of a filter is seldom equal to 385 mm(2). It
is appropriate for laboratories to routinely monitor the exact diameter
using an inside micrometer. The collection area is calculated according to
the formula:

Area = Pie(d/2)(2)

7.2. Short-cut Calculation

Since a given analyst always has the same interpupillary distance, the
number of fields per filter for a particular analyst will remain constant for
a given size filter. The field size for that analyst is constant (i.e. the
analyst is using an assigned microscope and is not changing the reticle).

For example, if the exposed area of the filter is always 385 mm(2) and the
size of the field is always 0.00785 mm(2), the number of fields per filter
will always be 49,000. In addition it is necessary to convert liters of air
to cc. These three constants can then be combined such that ECA/(1,000 X MFA)
= 49. The previous equation simplifies to:

(For Equation, see paper copy)

7.3. Recount Calculations

As mentioned in step 13 of Section 6.6.2., a "blind recount" of 10% of the
slides is performed. In all cases, differences will be observed between the
first and second counts of the same filter wedge. Most of these differences
will be due to chance alone, that is, due to the random variability
(precision) of the count method. Statistical recount criteria enables one to
decide whether observed differences can be explained due to chance alone or
are probably due to systematic differences between analysts, microscopes, or
other biasing factors.

The following recount criterion is for a pair of counts that estimate AC in
fibers/cc. The criterion is given at the type-I error level. That is, there
is 5% maximum risk that we will reject a pair of counts for the reason that
one might be biased, when the large observed difference is really due to
chance.

Reject a pair of counts if:

(For Equation, see paper copy)

Where:

AC(1)

=

lower estimated airborne fiber concentration

AC(2)

=

higher estimated airborne fiber concentration

AC(avg)

=

average of the two concentration estimates

CV(FB)

=

CV for the average of the two concentration estimates

If a pair of counts are rejected by this criterion then, recount the rest of
the filters in the submitted set. Apply the test and reject any other pairs
failing the test. Rejection shall include a memo to the industrial hygienist
stating that the sample failed a statistical test for homogeneity and the
true air concentration may be significantly different than the reported
value.

7.4. Reporting Results

Report results to the industrial hygienist as fibers/cc. Use two significant
figures. If multiple analyses are performed on a sample, an average of the
results is to be reported unless any of the results can be rejected for
cause.

The OSHA asbestos regulations require each laboratory to establish a quality
control program. The following is presented as an example of how the
OSHA-SLTC constructed its internal CV curve as part of meeting this
requirement. Data for the CV curve shown below is from 395 samples collected
during OSHA compliance inspections and analyzed from October 1980 through
April 1986.

Each sample was counted by 2 to 5 different counters independently of one
another. The standard deviation and the CV statistic was calculated for each
sample. This data was then plotted on a graph of CV vs. fibers/mm(2). A least
squares regression was performed using the following equation:

CV=antilog(10)[A(log(10)(x))(2) + B(log(10)(x)) + C]

Where:

x = the number of fibers/mm(2)

Application of least squares gave:

A = 0.182205
B = - 0.973343
C = 0.327499

Using these values, the equation becomes:

CV = antilog(10)[0.182205(log(10)

(x))(2) - 0.973343(log (10)(x)) + 0.327499]

Sampling Pump Flow Rate Corrections

This correction is used if a difference greater than 5% in ambient
temperature and/or pressure is noted between calibration and sampling sites
and the pump does not compensate for the differences.

(For Equation, see paper copy)

Where:

Q(act)

=

actual flow rate

Q(cal)

=

calibrated flow rate (if a rotameter was used, the rotameter value)

P(cal)

=

uncorrected air pressure at calibration

P(act)

=

uncorrected air pressure at sampling site

T(act)

=

temperature at sampling site (K)

T(cal)

=

temperature at calibration (K)

Walton-Beckett Graticule

When ordering the Graticule for asbestos counting, specify the exact disc
diameter needed to fit the ocular of the microscope and the diameter (mm) of
the circular counting area. Instructions for measuring the dimensions
necessary are listed:

(1) Insert any available graticule into the focusing eyepiece and focus so
that the graticule lines are sharp and clear.

(2) Align the microscope.

(3) Place a stage micrometer on the
microscope object stage and focus the microscope on the graduated
lines.

(5) Remove the graticule from the microscope and measure its actual grid
length, AL (mm). This can be accomplished by using a mechanical stage fitted
with verniers, or a jeweler's loupe with a direct reading scale.

(6) Let D=100 um. Calculate the circle diameter, d(c)(mm), for the
Walton-Beckett graticule and specify the diameter when making a purchase:

d(c)

=

AL x D -- -- -- -- -- -- PL

Example: If PL=108 um, AL=2.93 mm and D=100 um, then,

d(c)

=

2.93 x 100 -- -- -- -- -- -- 108

=

2.71mm

(7) Each eyepiece-objective-reticle combination on the microscope must be
calibrated. Should any of the three be changed (by zoom adjustment,
disassembly, replacement, etc.), the combination must be recalibrated.
Calibration may change if interpupillary distance is changed.

Measure the field diameter, D (acceptable range: 100 plus or minus 2 um)
with a stage micrometer upon receipt of the graticule from the manufacturer.
Determine the field area (mm(2)).

2. Odor-free water (e.g. distilled or spring water) at approximately 25
deg.C shall be used for the solutions.

3. The isoamyl acetate (IAA)(also known as isopentyl acetate) stock solution
is prepared by adding 1 cc of pure IAA to 800 cc of odor free water in a
1-liter jar and shaking for 30 seconds. This solution shall be prepared new
at least weekly.

4. The screening test shall be conducted in a room separate from the room
used for actual fit testing. The two rooms shall be well ventilated but shall
not be connected to the same recirculating ventilation system.

5. The odor test solution is prepared in a second jar by placing 0.4 cc of
the stock solution into 500 cc of odor free water using a clean dropper or
pipette. Shake for 30 seconds and allow to stand for two to three minutes so
that the IAA concentration above the liquid may reach equilibrium. This
solution may be used for only one day.

6. A test blank is prepared in a third jar by adding 500 cc of odor free
water.

7. The odor test and test blank jars shall be labelled 1 and 2 for jar
identification. If the labels are put on the lids they can be periodically
peeled, dried off and switched to maintain the integrity of the test.

8. The following instructions shall be typed on a card and placed on the
table in front of the two test jars (i.e. 1 and 2): "The purpose of this test
is to determine if you can smell banana oil at a low concentration. The two
bottles in front of you contain water. One of these bottles also contains a
small amount of banana oil. Be sure the covers are on tight, then shake each
bottle for two seconds. Unscrew the lid of each bottle, one at a time, and
sniff at the mouth of the bottle. Indicate to the test conductor which bottle
contains banana oil."

9. The mixtures used in the IAA odor detection test shall be prepared in an
area separate from where the test is performed, in order to prevent olfactory
fatigue in the subject.

10. If the test subject is unable to correctly identify the jar containing
the odor test solution, the IAA qualitative fit test may not be used.

11. If the test subject correctly identifies the jar containing the odor
test solution, the test subject may proceed to respirator selection and fit
testing.

B. Respirator Selection. 1. The test subject shall be allowed to pick the
most comfortable respirator from a selection including respirators of various
sizes from different manufacturers. The selection shall include at least five
sizes of elastomeric half facepieces, from at least two manufacturers.

2. The selection process shall be conducted in a room separate from the
fit-test chamber to prevent odor fatigue. Prior to the selection process, the
test subject shall be shown how to put on a respirator, how it should be
positioned on the face, how to set strap tension and how to determine a
"comfortable" respirator. A mirror shall be available to assist the subject
in evaluating the fit and positioning of the respirator. This instruction may
not constitute the subject's formal training on respirator use, as it is only
a review.

3. The test subject should understand that the employee is being asked to
select the respirator which provides the most comfortable fit. Each
respirator represents a different size and shape and, if fit properly and
used properly will provide adequate protection.

4. The test subject holds each facepiece up to the face and eliminates those
which obviously do not give a comfortable fit. Normally, selection will begin
with a half-mask and if a good fit cannot be found, the subject will be asked
to test the full facepiece respirators. (A small percentage of users will not
be able to wear any half-mask.) 5. The more comfortable facepieces are noted;
the most comfortable mask is donned and worn at least five minutes to assess
comfort. All donning and adjustments of the facepiece shall be performed by
the test subject without assistance from the test conductor or other person.
Assistance in assessing comfort can be given by discussing the points in #6
below. If the test subject is not familiar with using a particular
respirator, the test subject shall be directed to don the mask several times
and to adjust the straps each time to become adept at setting proper tension
on the straps.

6. Assessment of comfort shall include reviewing the following points with
the test subject and allowing the test subject adequate time to determine the
comfort of the respirator:

8. The test subject shall conduct the
conventional negative and positive-pressure fit checks (e.g. see ANSI
Z88.2-1980). Before conducting the negative- or positive-pressure test the
subject shall be told to "seat" the mask by rapidly moving the head from
side-to-side and up and down, while taking a few deep breaths.

9. The test subject is now ready for fit testing.

10. After passing
the fit test, the test subject shall be questioned again regarding the
comfort of the respirator. If it has become uncomfortable, another model of
respirator shall be tried.

11. The employee shall be given the opportunity to select a different
facepiece and be retested if the chosen facepiece becomes increasingly
uncomfortable at any time.

C. Fit test. 1. The fit test chamber shall be similar to a clear 55 gal drum
liner suspended inverted over a 2 foot diameter frame, so that the top of the
chamber is about 6 inches above the test subject's head. The inside top
center of the chamber shall have a small hook attached.

2. Each respirator used for the fitting and fit testing shall be equipped
with organic vapor cartridges or offer protection against organic vapors. The
cartridges or masks shall be changed at least weekly.

3. After selecting, donning, and properly adjusting a respirator, the test
subject shall wear it to the fit testing room. This room shall be separate
from the room used for odor threshold screening and respirator selection, and
shall be well ventilated, as by an exhaust fan or lab hood, to prevent
general room contamination.

4. A copy of the following test exercises and rainbow passage shall be taped
to the inside of the test chamber:

Test Exercises

i. Breathe normally.

ii. Breathe deeply. Be certain breaths are deep
and regular.

iii. Turn head all the way from one side to the other. Inhale on
each side. Be certain movement is complete. Do not bump the respirator
against the shoulders.

iv. Nod head up-and-down. Inhale when head is in the full up position
(looking toward ceiling). Be certain motions are complete and made about
every second. Do not bump the respirator on the chest.

v. Talking. Talk aloud and slowly for several minutes. The following
paragraph is called the Rainbow Passage. Reading it will result in a wide
range of facial movements, and thus be useful to satisfy this requirement.
Alternative passages which serve the same purpose may also be used.

vi. Jogging in place. vii. Breathe normally.

Rainbow Passage

When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a prism and
form a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautiful
colors. These take the shape of a long round arch, with its path high above,
and its two ends apparently beyond the horizon. There is, according to
legend, a boiling pot of gold at one end. People look, but no one ever finds
it. When a man looks for something beyond reach, his friends say he is
looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

5. Each test subject shall wear the respirator for at a least 10 minutes
before starting the fit test.

6. Upon entering the test chamber, the test subject shall be given a 6 inch
by 5 inch piece of paper towel or other porous absorbent single ply material,
folded in half and wetted with three- quarters of one cc of pure IAA. The
test subject shall hang the wet towel on the hook at the top of the chamber.

7. Allow two minutes for the IAA test concentration to be reached before
starting the fit-test exercises. This would be an appropriate time to talk
with the test subject, to explain the fit test, the importance of
cooperation, the purpose for the head exercises, or to demonstrate some of
the exercises.

8. Each exercise described in #4 above shall be performed for at least one
minute.

9. If at any time during the test, the subject detects the banana-like odor
of IAA, the test has failed. The subject shall quickly exit from the test
chamber and leave the test area to avoid olfactory fatigue.

10. If the test is failed, the subject shall return to the selection room
and remove the respirator, repeat the odor sensitivity test, select and put
on another respirator, return to the test chamber, and again begin the
procedure described in the c(4) through c(8) above. The process continues
until a respirator that fits well has been found. Should the odor sensitivity
test be failed, the subject shall wait about 5 minutes before retesting. Odor
sensitivity will usually have returned by this time.

11. If a person cannot pass the fit test described above wearing a half-mask
respirator from the available selection, full facepiece models must be used.

12. When a respirator is found that passes the test, the subject breaks the
faceseal and takes a breath before exiting the chamber. This is to assure
that the reason the test subject is not smelling the IAA is the good fit of
the respirator facepiece seal and not olfactory fatigue.

13. When the test subject leaves the chamber, the subject shall remove the
saturated towel and return it to the person conducting the test. To keep the
area from becoming contaminated, the used towels shall be kept in a
self-sealing bag so there is no significant IAA concentration buildup in the
test chamber during subsequent tests.

14. At least two facepieces shall be selected for the IAA test protocol. The
test subject shall be given the opportunity to wear them for one week to
choose the one which is more comfortable to wear.

15. Persons who have successfully passed this fit test with a half-mask
respirator may be assigned the use of the test respirator in atmospheres with
up to 10 times the PEL of airborne asbestos. In atmospheres greater than 10
times, and less than 100 times the PEL (up to 100 ppm), the subject must pass
the IAA test using a full face negative pressure respirator. (The
concentration of the 1AA inside the test chamber must be increased by ten
times for QLFT of the full facepiece.) 16. The test shall not be conducted if
there is any hair growth between the skin the facepiece sealing surface.

17. If hair growth or apparel interfere with a satisfactory fit, then they
shall be altered or removed so as to eliminate interference and allow a
satisfactory fit. If a satisfactory fit is still not attained, the test
subject must use a positive-pressure respirator such as powered air-purifying
respirators, supplied air respirator, or self-contained breathing apparatus.

18. If a test subject exhibits difficulty in breathing during the tests, she
or he shall be referred to a physician trained in respirator diseases or
pulmonary medicine to determine whether the test subject can wear a
respirator while performing her or his duties.

19. Qualitative fit testing shall be repeated at least every six
months.

20. In addition, because the sealing of the respirator may be
affected, qualitative fit testing shall be repeated immediately when the test
subject has a:

(1) Weight change of 20 pounds or more, (2) Significant facial
scarring in the area of the facepiece seal, (3) Significant dental changes;
i.e.; multiple extractions without prothesis, or acquiring dentures, (4)
Reconstructive or cosmetic surgery, or (5) Any other condition that may
interfere with facepiece sealing.

D. Recordkeeping. A summary of all test
results shall be maintained in each office for 3 years. The summary shall
include:

A. Respirator selection. Respirators shall be selected as described in
section IB (respirator selection) above, except that each respirator shall be
equipped with a particulate filter.

B. Taste Threshold Screening. 1. An enclosure about head and
shoulders shall be used for threshold screening (to determine if the
individual can taste saccharin) and for fit testing. The enclosure shall be
approximately 12 inches in diameter by 14 inches tall with at least the front
clear to allow free movement of the head when a respirator is worn.

2. The test enclosure shall have a three-quarter inch hole in front of the
test subject's nose and mouth area to accommodate the nebulizer nozzle.

3. The entire screening and testing procedure shall be explained to the test
subject prior to conducting the screening test.

4. During the threshold screening test, the test subject shall don the test
enclosure and breathe with open mouth with tongue extended.

5. Using a DeVilbiss Model 40 Inhalation Medication Nebulizer or equivalent,
the test conductor shall spray the threshold check solution into the
enclosure. This nebulizer shall be clearly marked to distinguish it from the
fit test solution nebulizer.

6. The threshold check solution consists of 0.83 grams of sodium saccharin,
USP in water. It can be prepared by putting 1 cc of the test solution (see C
7 below) in 100 cc of water.

7. To produce the aerosol, the nebulizer bulb is firmly squeezed so that it
collapses completely, then is released and allowed to fully expand.

8. Ten squeezes of the nebulizer bulb are repeated rapidly and then the test
subject is asked whether the saccharin can be tasted.

9. If the first response is negative, ten more squeezes of the nebulizer
bulb are repeated rapidly and the test subject is again asked whether the
saccharin can be tasted.

10. If the second response is negative ten more squeezes are repeated
rapidly and the test subject is again asked whether the saccharin can be
tasted.

11. The test conductor will take note of the number of squeezes required to
elicit a taste response.

12. If the saccharin is not tasted after 30 squeezes (Step 10), the
saccharin fit test cannot be performed on the test subject.

13. If a taste response is elicited, the test subject shall be asked to take
note of the taste for reference in the fit test.

14. Correct use of the nebulizer means that approximately 1 cc of liquid is
used at a time in the nebulizer body.

15. The nebulizer shall be thoroughly rinsed in water, shaken dry, and
refilled at least every four hours.

C. Fit test. 1. The test subject shall don and adjust the respirator without
the assistance from any person.

2. The fit test uses the same enclosure described in IIB above.

3.
Each test subject shall wear the respirator for a least 10 minutes before
starting the fit test.

4. The test subject shall don the enclosure while wearing the respirator
selected in section IB above. This respirator shall be properly adjusted and
equipped with a particulate filter.

5. The test subject may not eat, drink (except plain water), or chew gum for
15 minutes before the test.

6. A second DeVilbiss Model 40 Inhalation Medication Nebulizer is used to
spray the fit test solution into the enclosure. This nebulizer shall be
clearly marked to distinguish it from the screening test solution nebulizer.

7. The fit test solution is prepared by adding 83 grams of sodium saccharin
to 100 cc of warm water.

8. As before, the test subject shall breathe with mouth open and tongue
extended.

9. The nebulizer is inserted into the hole in the front of the enclosure and
the fit test solution is sprayed into the enclosure using the same technique
as for the taste threshold screening and the same number of squeezes required
to elicit a taste response in the screening. (See B8 through B10 above).

10. After generation of the aerosol read the following instructions to the
test subject. The test subject shall perform the exercises for one minute
each.

i. Breathe normally. ii. Breathe deeply. Be certain breaths are deep
and regular. iii. Turn head all the way from one side to the other. Be
certain movement is complete. Inhale on each side. Do not bump the respirator
against the shoulders.
iv. Nod head up-and-down. Be certain motions are complete. Inhale when head
is in the full up position (when looking toward the ceiling). Do not to bump
the respirator on the chest.
v. Talking. Talk aloud and slowly for several minutes. The following
paragraph is called the Rainbow Passage. Reading it will result in a wide
range of facial movements, and thus be useful to satisfy this requirement.
Alternative passages which serve the same purpose may also be used.
vi. Jogging in place. vii. Breathe normally.

Rainbow Passage

When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a prism and
form a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautiful
colors. These take the shape of a long round arch, with its path high above,
and its two ends apparently beyond the horizon. There is, according to
legend, a boiling pot of gold at one end. People look, but no one ever finds
it. When a man looks for something beyond his reach, his friends say he is
looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

11. At the beginning of each exercise, the aerosol concentration shall be
replenished using one-half the number of squeezes as initially described in
C9.

12. The test subject shall indicate to the test conductor if at any time
during the fit test the taste of saccharin is detected.

13. If the saccharin is detected the fit is deemed unsatisfactory and a
different respirator shall be tried.

14. At least two facepieces shall be selected by the IAA test protocol. The
test subject shall be given the opportunity to wear them for one week to
choose the one which is more comfortable to wear.

15. Successful completion of the test protocol shall allow the use of the
half mask tested respirator in contaminated atmospheres up to 10 times the
PEL of asbestos. In other words this protocol may be used assign protection
factors no higher than ten.

16. The test shall not be conducted if there is any hair growth between the
skin and the facepiece sealing surface.

17. If hair growth or apparel interfere with a satisfactory fit, then they
shall be altered or removed so as to eliminate interference and allow a
satisfactory fit. If a satisfactory fit is still not attained, the test
subject must use a positive-pressure respirator such as powered air-purifying
respirators, supplied air respirator, or self-contained breathing apparatus.

18. If a test subject exhibits difficulty in breathing during the tests, she
or he shall be referred to a physician trained in respirator diseases or
pulmonary medicine to determine whether the test subject can wear a
respirator while performing her or his duties.

19. Qualitative fit testing shall be repeated at least every six
months.

20. In addition, because the sealing of the respirator may be
affected, qualitative fit testing shall be repeated immediately when the test
subject has a:

(1) Weight change of 20 pounds or more, (2) Significant facial
scarring in the area of the facepiece seal, (3) Significant dental changes;
i.e.; multiple extractions without prothesis, or acquiring dentures, (4)
Reconstructive or cosmetic surgery, or (5) Any other condition that may
interfere with facepiece sealing.

D. Recordkeeping. A summary of all test
results shall be maintained in each office for 3 years. The summary shall
include:

5. Break both ends of a ventilation smoke tube containing stannic
oxychloride, such as the MSA part #5645, or equivalent. Attach a short length
of tubing to one end of the smoke tube. Attach the other end of the smoke
tube to a low pressure air pump set to deliver 200 milliliters per minute.

6. Advise the test subject that the smoke can be irritating to the eyes and
instruct the subject to keep the eyes closed while the test is performed.

7. The test conductor shall direct the stream of irritant smoke from the
tube towards the faceseal area of the test subject. The person conducting the
test shall begin with the tube at least 12 inches from the facepiece and
gradually move to within one inch, moving around the whole perimeter of the
mask.

8. The test subject shall be instructed to do the following exercises while
the respirator is being challenged by the smoke. Each exercise shall be
performed for one minute.

i. Breathe normally. ii. Breathe deeply. Be certain breaths are deep
and regular. iii. Turn head all the way from one side to the other. Be
certain movement is complete. Inhale on each side. Do not bump the respirator
against the shoulders.
iv. Nod head up-and-down. Be certain motions are complete and made every
second. Inhale when head is in the full up position (looking toward ceiling).
Do not bump the respirator against the chest.
v. Talking. Talk aloud and slowly for several minutes. The following
paragraph is called the Rainbow Passage. Reading it will result in a wide
range of facial movements, and thus be useful to satisfy this requirement.
Alternative passages which serve the same purpose may also be used.

Rainbow Passage

When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a prism and
form a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautiful
colors. These take the shape of a long round arch, with its path high above,
and its two end apparently beyond the horizon. There is, according to legend,
a boiling pot of gold at one end. People look, but no one ever finds it. When
a man looks for something beyond his reach, his friends say he is looking for
the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

vi. Jogging in Place. vii. Breathe normally.

9. The test subject
shall indicate to the test conductor if the irritant smoke is detected. If
smoke is detected, the test conductor shall stop the test. In this case, the
tested respirator is rejected and another respirator shall be
selected.

10. Each test subject passing the smoke test (i.e. without detecting the
smoke) shall be given a sensitivity check of smoke from the same tube to
determine if the test subject reacts to the smoke. Failure to evoke a
response shall void the fit test.

11. Steps B4, B9, B10 of this fit test protocol shall be performed in a
location with exhaust ventilation sufficient to prevent general contamination
of the testing area by the test agents.

12. At least two facepieces shall be selected by the IAA test protocol. The
test subject shall be given the opportunity to wear them for one week to
choose the one which is more comfortable to wear.

13. Respirators successfully tested by the protocol may be used in
contaminated atmospheres up to ten times the PEL of asbestos.

14. The test shall not be conducted if there is any hair growth between the
skin and the facepiece sealing surface.

15. If hair growth or apparel interfere with a satisfactory fit, then they
shall be altered or removed so as to eliminate interference and allow a
satisfactory fit. If a satisfactory fit is still not attained, the test
subject must use a positive-pressure respirator such as powered air-purifying
respirators, supplied air respirator, or self-contained breathing apparatus.

16. If a test subject exhibits difficulty in breathing during the tests, she
or he shall be referred to a physician trained in respirator diseases or
pulmonary medicine to determine whether the test subject can wear a
respirator while performing her or his duties.

17. Qualitative fit testing shall be repeated at least every six
months.

18. In addition, because the sealing of the respirator may be
affected, qualitative fit testing shall be repeated immediately when the test
subject has a:

(1) Weight change of 20 pounds or more, (2) Significant facial
scarring in the area of the facepiece seal, (3) Significant dental changes;
i.e.; multiple extractions without prothesis, or acquiring dentures, (4)
Reconstructive or cosmetic surgery, or (5) Any other condition that may
interfere with facepiece sealing.

D. Recordkeeping. A summary of all test
results shall be maintained in each office for 3 years. The summary shall
include:

b. The employer shall assign one individual who shall assume the full
responsibility for implementing the respirator quantitative fit test program.

2. Definition

a. "Quantitative Fit Test" means the measurement of the effectiveness of a
respirator seal in excluding the ambient atmosphere. The test is performed by
dividing the measured concentration of challenge agent in a test chamber by
the measured concentration of the challenge agent inside the respirator
facepiece when the normal air purifying element has been replaced by an
essentially perfect purifying element.

b. "Challenge Agent" means the air contaminant introduced into a test
chamber so that its concentration inside and outside the respirator may be
compared.

b. Test chamber. The test chamber shall be large enough to permit all test
subjects to freely perform all required exercises without distributing the
challenge agent concentration or the measurement apparatus. The test chamber
shall be equipped and constructed so that the challenge agent is effectively
isolated from the ambient air yet uniform in concentration throughout the
chamber.

c. When testing air-purifying respirators, the normal filter or cartridge
element shall be replaced with a high-efficiency particular filter supplied
by the same manufacturer.

d. The sampling instrument shall be selected so that a strip chart record
may be made of the test showing the rise and fall of challenge agent
concentration with each inspiration and expiration at fit factors of at least
2,000.

e. The combination of substitute air-purifying elements (if any), challenge
agent, and challenge agent concentration in the test chamber shall be such
that the test subject is not exposed in excess of PEL to the challenge agent
at any time during the testing process.

f. The sampling port on the test specimen respirator shall be placed and
constructed so that there is no detectable leak around the port, a free air
flow is allowed into the sampling line at all times and so there is no
interference with the fit or performance of the respirator.

g. The test chamber and test set-up shall permit the person administering
the test to observe one test subject inside the chamber during the test.

h. The equipment generating the challenge atmosphere shall maintain the
concentration of challenge agent constant within a 10 percent variation for
the duration of the test.

i. The time lag (interval between an event and its being recorded on the
strip chart) of the instrumentation may not exceed 2 seconds.

j. The tubing for the test chamber atmosphere and for the respirator
sampling port shall be the same diameter, length and material. It shall be
kept as short as possible. The smallest diameter tubing recommended by the
manufacturer shall be used.

k. The exhaust flow from the test chamber shall pass through a
high-efficiency filter before release to the room.

a. The fitting of half-mask respirators should be started with those having
multiple sizes and a variety of interchangeable cartridges and canisters such
as the MSA Comfo II-M, Norton M, Survivair M, A-O M, or Scott-M. Use either
of the tests outlined below to assure that the facepiece is properly
adjusted.

(1) Positive pressure test. With the exhaust port(s) blocked, the negative
pressure of slight inhalation should remain constant for several seconds.

(2) Negative pressure test. With the intake port(s) blocked, the negative
pressure slight inhalation should remain constant for several seconds.

b. After a facepiece is adjusted, the test subject shall wear the facepiece
for at least 5 minutes before conducting a qualitative test by using either
of the methods described below and using the exercise regime described in
5.a., b., c., d. and e.

(1) Isoamyl acetate test. When using organic vapor cartridges, the test
subject who can smell the odor should be unable to detect the odor of isoamyl
acetate squirted into the air near the most vulnerable portions of the
facepiece seal. In a location which is separated from the test area, the test
subject shall be instructed to close her/his eyes during the test period. A
combination cartridge or canister with organic vapor and high-efficiency
filters shall be used when available for the particular mask being tested.
The test subject shall be given an opportunity to smell the odor of isoamyl
acetate before the test is conducted.

(2) Irritant fume test. When using high-efficiency filters, the test subject
should be unable to detect the odor of irritant fume (stannic chloride or
titanium tetrachloride ventilation smoke tubes) squirted into the air near
the most vulnerable portions of the facepiece seal. The test subject shall be
instructed to close her/ his eyes during the test period.

c. The test subject may enter the quantitative testing chamber only if she
or he has obtained a satisfactory fit as stated in 4.b. of this Appendix.

d. Before the subject enters the test chamber, a reasonably stable challenge
agent concentration shall be measured in the test chamber.

e. Immediately after the subject enters the test chamber, the challenge
agent concentration inside the respirator shall be measured to ensure that
the peak penetration does not exceed 5 percent for a half-mask and 1 percent
for a full facepiece.

f. A stable challenge agent concentration shall be obtained prior to the
actual start of testing.

1. Respirator restraining straps may not be over-tightened for testing. The
straps shall be adjusted by the wearer to give a reasonably comfortable fit
typical of normal use.

5. Exercise Regime. Prior to entering the test chamber, the test subject
shall be given complete instructions as to her/his part in the test
procedures. The test subject shall perform the following exercises, in the
order given, for each independent test.

a. Normal Breathing (NB). In the normal standing position, without talking,
the subject shall breathe normally for at least one minute.

b. Deep Breathing (DB). In the normal standing position the subject shall do
deep breathing for at least one minute pausing so as not to hyperventilate.

c. Turning head side to side (SS). Standing in place the subject shall
slowly turn his/her head from side between the extreme positions to each
side. The head shall be held at each extreme position for at least 5 seconds.
Perform for at least three complete cycles.

d. Moving head up and down (UD). Standing in place, the subject shall slowly
move his/her head up and down between the extreme position straight up and
the extreme position straight down. The head shall be held at each extreme
position for at least 5 seconds. Perform for at least three complete cycles.

e. Reading (R). The subject shall read out slowly and loud so as to be heard
clearly by the test conductor or monitor. The test subject shall read the
"rainbow passage" at the end of this section.

g. Bend over and touch toes (B). The test subject shall bend at the waist
and touch toes and return to upright position. Repeat for at least 30
seconds.

h. Jogging in place (J). The test subject shall perform jog in place for at
least 30 seconds.

i. Normal Breathing (NB). Same as exercise a.

Rainbow Passage

When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a prism and
form a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautiful
colors. These take the shape of a long round arch, with its path high above,
and its two ends apparently beyond the horizon. There is, according to
legend, a boiling pot of gold at one end. People look, but no one ever finds
it. When a man looks for something beyond reach, his friends say he is
looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

6. The test shall be terminated whenever any single peak penetration exceeds
5 percent for half-masks and 1 percent for full facepieces. The test subject
may be refitted and retested. If two the three required tests are terminated,
the fit shall be deemed inadequate. (See paragraph 4.h.).

7. Calculation of Fit Factors

a. The fit factor determined by the quantitative fit test equals the average
concentration inside the respirator.

b. The average test chamber concentration is the arithmetic average of the
test chamber concentration at the beginning and of the end of the test.

c. The average peak concentration of the challenge agent inside the
respirator shall be the arithmetic average peak concentrations for each of
the nine exercises of the test which are computed as the arithmetic average
of the peak concentrations found for each breath during the exercise.

d. The average peak concentration for an exercise may be determined
graphically if there is not a great variation in the peak concentrations
during a single exercise.

8. Interpretation of Test Results.

The fit factor measured by the quantitative fit testing shall be the lowest
of the three protection factors resulting from three independent tests.

9. Other Requirements

a. The test subject shall not be permitted to wear a half-mask or full
facepiece mask if the minimum fit factor of 100 or 1,000, respectively,
cannot be obtained. If hair growth or apparel interfere with a satisfactory
fit, then they shall be altered or removed so as to eliminate interference
and allow a satisfactory fit. If a satisfactory fit is still not attained,
the test subject must use a positive-pressure respirator such as powered air-
purifying respirators, supplied air respirator, or self-contained breathing
apparatus.

b. The test shall not be conducted if there is any hair growth between the
skin and the facepiece sealing surface.

c. If a test subject exhibits difficulty in breathing during the tests, she
or he shall be referred to a physician trained in respirator diseases or
pulmonary medicine to determine whether the test subject can wear a
respirator while performing her or his duties.

d. The test subject shall be given the opportunity to wear the assigned
respirator for one week. If the respirator does not provide a satisfactory
fit during actual use, the test subject may request another QNFT which shall
be performed immediately.

e. A respirator fit factor card shall be issued to the test subject with the
following information:

(1) Name

(2) Date of fit test.

(3) Protection factors obtained
through each manufacturer, model and approval number of respirator
tested.

(4) Name and signature of the person that conducted the test.

f.
Filters used for qualitative or quantitative fit testing shall be replaced
weekly, whenever increased breathing resistance is encountered, or when the
test agent has altered the integrity of the filter media.

Organic vapor cartridges/canisters shall be replaced daily or sooner if
there is any indication of breakthrough by the test agent.

10. In addition, because the sealing of the respirator may be affected,
quantitative fit testing shall be repeated immediately when the test subject
has a:

(1) Weight change of 20 pounds or more, (2) Significant facial
scarring in the area of the facepiece seal, (3) Significant dental changes;
i.e.; multiple extractions without prothesis, or acquiring dentures, (4)
Reconstructive or cosmetic surgery, or (5) Any other condition that may
interfere with facepiece sealing.

11. Recordkeeping

A summary of all test results shall be maintained in for 3 years. The
summary shall include:

(1) Name of test subject (2) Date of testing. (3) Name of the test
conductor. (4) Fit factors obtained from every respirator tested (indicate
manufacturer, model, size and approval number).

Appendix D to 1915.1001 -- Medical Questionnaires. Mandatory

This mandatory appendix contains the medical questionnaires that must be
administered to all employees who are exposed to asbestos, tremolite,
anthophyllite, actinolite, or a combination of these minerals above the
permissible exposure limit (0.1 f/cc), and who will therefore be included in
their employer's medical surveillance program. Part 1 of the appendix
contains the Initial Medical Questionnaire, which must be obtained for all
new hires who will be covered by the medical surveillance requirements. Part
2 includes the abbreviated Periodical Medical Questionnaire, which must be
administered to all employees who are provided periodic medical examinations
under the medical surveillance provisions of the standard.

Part 1
INITIAL MEDICAL QUESTIONNAIRE
1. NAME ________________________________________________________________
2. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER # ____________________________________________
3. CLOCK NUMBER ________________________________________________________
4. PRESENT OCCUPATION __________________________________________________
5. PLANT _______________________________________________________________
6. ADDRESS _____________________________________________________________
7. _____________________________________________________________________
(Zip Code)
8. TELEPHONE NUMBER ____________________________________________________
9. INTERVIEWER _________________________________________________________
10. DATE ________________________________________________________________
11. Date of Birth _______________________________________________________
Month Day Year
12. Place of Birth ______________________________________________________
13. Sex 1. Male ___
2. Female ___
14. What is your marital status? 1. Single ___ 4. Separated/
2. Married ___ Divorced ___
3. Widowed ___
15. Race 1. White ___ 4. Hispanic ___
2. Black ___ 5. Indian ___
3. Asian ___ 6. Other ___
16. What is the highest grade completed in school? _____________________
(For example 12 years is completion of high school)
OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY
17A. Have you ever worked full time (30 hours 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
per week or more) for 6 months or more?
IF YES TO 17A:
B. Have you ever worked for a year or more in 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
any dusty job? 3. Does Not Apply ___
Specify job/industry _______________ Total Years Worked __________
Was dust exposure: 1. Mild ____ 2. Moderate ____ 3. Severe ____
C. Have you ever been exposed to gas or 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
chemical fumes in your work?
Specify job/industry ______________________ Total Years Worked ___
Was exposure : 1. Mild ____ 2. Moderate ____ 3. Severe ____
D. What has been your usual occupation or job -- the one you have
worked at the longest?
1. Job occupation ________________________________________________
2. Number of years employed in this occupation ___________________
3. Position/job title ____________________________________________
4. Business, field or industry ___________________________________
(Record on lines the years in which you have worked in any of these
industries, e.g. 1960-1969)
Have you ever worked: YES NO
E. In a mine? ......................... _____ _____
F. In a quarry? ....................... _____ _____
G. In a foundry? ...................... _____ _____
H. In a pottery? ...................... _____ _____
I. In a cotton, flax or hemp mill? .... _____ _____
J. With asbestos? ..................... _____ _____
18. PAST MEDICAL HISTORY
YES NO
A. Do you consider yourself to be in good health? _____ _____
If "NO" state reason __________________________________________
B. Have you any defect of vision? ............... _____ _____
If "YES" state nature of defect _______________________________
C. Have you any hearing defect? ................. _____ _____
If "YES" state nature of defect ______________________________
D. Are you suffering from or have you ever suffered from:
YES NO
a. Epilepsy (or fits, seizures, convulsions)? _____ _____
b. Rheumatic fever? _____ _____
c. Kidney disease? _____ _____
d. Bladder disease? _____ _____
e. Diabetes? _____ _____
f. Jaundice? _____ _____
19. CHEST COLDS AND CHEST ILLNESSES
19A. If you get a cold, does it "usually" go to your
chest? (Usually means more than 1/2 the time)
1. Yes ___ 2. No ___ 3. Don't get colds ___
20A. During the past 3 years, have you had any chest illnesses
that have kept you off work, indoors at home, or in bed?
1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
IF YES TO 20A:
B. Did you produce phlegm with any of these chest illnesses?
1. Yes ___ 2. No ___ 3. Does Not Apply ___
C. In the last 3 years, how many such illnesses with (increased)
phlegm did you have which lasted a week or more?
Number of illnesses ___ No such illnesses ___
21. Did you have any lung trouble before the age of 16?
1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
22. Have you ever had any of the following?
1A. Attacks of bronchitis? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
IF YES TO 1A:
B. Was it confirmed by a doctor? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
3. Does Not Apply ___
C. At what age was your first attack? Age in Years ___
Does Not Apply ___
2A. Pneumonia (include bronchopneumonia)? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
IF YES TO 2A:
B. Was it confirmed by a doctor? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
3. Does Not Apply ___
C. At what age did you first have it? Age in Years ___
Does Not Apply ___
3A. Hay Fever? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
IF YES TO 3A:
B. Was it confirmed by a doctor? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
3. Does Not Apply ___
C. At what age did it start? Age in Years ___
Does Not Apply ___
23A. Have you ever had chronic bronchitis? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
IF YES TO 23A:
B. Do you still have it? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
3. Does Not Apply ___
C. Was it confirmed by a doctor? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
3. Does Not Apply ___
D. At what age did it start? Age in Years ___
Does Not Apply ___
24A. Have you ever had emphysema? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
IF YES TO 24A:
B. Do you still have it? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
3. Does Not Apply ___
C. Was it confirmed by a doctor? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
3. Does Not Apply ___
D. At what age did it start? Age in Years ___
Does Not Apply ___
25A. Have you ever had asthma? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
IF YES TO 25A:
B. Do you still have it? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
3. Does Not Apply ___
C. Was it confirmed by a doctor? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
3. Does Not Apply ___
D. At what age did it start? Age in Years ___
Does Not Apply ___
E. If you no longer have it, at what age did it stop?
Age stopped ___
Does Not Apply ___
26. Have you ever had:
A. Any other chest illness? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
If yes, please specify ___________________________________________
B. Any chest operations? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
If yes, please specify ___________________________________________
C. Any chest injuries? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___
If yes, please specify